User talk:Tamzin - Knowledge

7140:

stability meant that I could slowly tug my mental health to where it needed to be, in order for me to be the person my family deserved. And eventually I got to that place, got to create the happy domesticated polycule life I'd dreamt of, but I still was stuck on that 24-hour planning loop.And so in all that time, about 3 years, responding to messages was the hardest thing. I set a hard rule for myself that any ADMINACCT inquiries got a drop-everything response, because at any slower pace there was no guarantee I'd remember to reply at all. Once something fell off that 24-hour radar, I often forgot about it entirely. Every few months I'd comb through old messages and reply to some, and leave others. But it was always a losing battle.So, that's the "maybe ... some reason": I've left a lot of messages up because I'd rather respond late than never (and, for ones I've already responded to, or that don't need no response, the same phenomenon's always made it hard to remember to archive/remove). Now, for all my willingness to speak about mental health in the abstract, I generally dislike explaining on-wiki issues with "because mental illness". The reason I'm answering this now is because all of this stopped being true about two weeks ago! And I'm excited about that and wanted to take a moment (at the expense of your reading patience, no doubt) to commemorate it. After three years of figuring out my DID, it turned out that if certain parts of me merged with certain other parts, the result was a combined part with an actual working memory, healthy sleep schedule, and much better disposition. It's pretty awesome! I've spent a lot of the past two weeks doing things like place important phone calls and then get really excited about how I just totally placed that phone call without forgetting for 6 months. On-wiki, I've been working on my "white whale" draft, which I'd wandered away from for the third time in July. (I shan't link. 🪬) And so, this is a fortuitous time for you to remind me about these back messages. I'll try and get to them this week.

12293:, written together, introduced: "Capri-Sun debuted in West Germany in 1969. Since then, it has become a global brand, one made distinctive by its stand-up Doy-N-Pack pouch. Growing up, you could find a Capri-Sun in the lunchbox of that kid you hated. These days you can find them center-stage in French hip-hop culture as "the new ostentatious elixir of French rappers and gangsters". In the United States, Capri Sun is associated with wholesome things like picnics, soccer practice, and having for 16 years been licensed to one of the world's largest tobacco companies, which applied its expertise at both selling products to children and misleading the public about products' health effects, in a marketing strategy so effective that you're probably still thinking about that kid from two sentences ago. Childhood consumption of sugary beverages increased, and so did childhood obesity, but admittedly Pacific Cooler does taste great. - Initially, Tamzin and I thought this was gonna be a quick adventure – we thought we'd quickly flip a good number of soft drink articles, maybe even get a good topic. Capri-Sun quickly proved to be no insignificant task, though – it's the longest article either of us can put our names on, with every word of prose written from scratch. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive independent work on Capri-Sun in existence. We got it to GA in early 2023 after a couple months' work, making it one of two GAs on a soft drink and the only one on a juice beverage. Then, it just sat for a while. But after dusting off the ol' thing and giving it the last few bits it was missing, it is with much pride and added sugar that we finally push this towards the finish line. :)"! -- 15019:

considerations. Bluntly, the community was asleep at the wheel on this one: the ultimate decision was more or less a foregone conclusion, and the time to codify it as such was before Knowledge was made party to the case--or at the very least, before the ruling was rendered. Now we have left outside institutions in general, and the Supreme Court and government of India in particular, with the possible impression that we acceded to their authority and judgment. That could very well factor in to a future decision by the court (or any number of other entities) to similarly attempt to force our hand on content they deem actionable under the domestic law of a particular country. With very little guarantee that next time our own eventual analysis of the issue will align our consensus decision with what is wanted by the court/sovereign seeking to enforce its decision on any such future occasion. This is a bad precedent that didn't need to happen, which could play into future tensions between the community, outside parties, and the WMF. I'm not sure exactly what they are, but I am certain there are lessons to be learned from this situation about seeking broader community input in such cases long before the point of such problematic outcomes.

5514: 11859:

of reading ANI (i've even got it open in a tab as i type this) & trawling through the depths of past arbcom proceedings purely out of fascination; i could point to several threads on ANI right now that are crystal-clear examples of the double standards you point out. i've even found myself falling into the mindset of "do i have enough social capital to bring this up , or should i just hope that someone else more 'senior' than i will see it too and do something about it". i really appreciate you putting this into words, and since joining i've found your willingness to speak your mind, both onwiki & on discord, refreshing.i've never fully read through Vami's RfA nor yours, and i don't plan on it at this point, but i knew Vami for a few too-short months mostly via the discord server. i was kind of surprised when in january he offered to collaborate with me on

528:. It's funny, it started just as this weird feeling based on the RfD !votes... We get weird !vote patterns at RfD all the time, usually when a number of non-regulars wander in and don't understand how the forum actually works. The weird thing, though, was that they did seem to get the basic premise of RfD, but were still !voting for a conclusion that made no sense. But still I didn't have that high an index of suspicion, and also I was rather busy, and was this closed to dropping it. But instead, kind of on a whim, I asked Blablubbs to take a look. I was only suspicious about the four who'd !voted consecutively, and I was frankly surprised when Blablubbs turned up evidence tying not just all four of them, but Apollo too. I had no previous exposure to this topic area, and didn't know any of the players, so I really though I'd just be dealing with a few 12217: 3673:) at the outset. The community could have handled the rest. From what I've seen, these were two editors who were trying to do what they thought was the right thing for Knowledge, even if they were on the wrong side of policy. I think it's important to remember (cf. my comments about YellowMonkey in response to my most-recent question) that we're humans behind the usernames and even admins who have made even severe misjudgements are still people who have given thousands of hours to make Knowledge better. We may have to discipline them for The Greater Good™ but we should try to be compassionate while we do it. Anyway, you're a great admin and I respect your opinion and won't hold it against you if you oppose me. I don't expect you to change your mind, just wanted to share my thought process. All the best, 5098:: Legal threat blocks can be lifted as soon as the threat is retracted. At the same time, don't be misled by the block length: It's only temporary because IPs change over time. If he resumes editing from that IP after the block ends, and does not retract the threat, he will be re-blocked. I appreciate that that may seem unkind to do to an old man who doesn't seem to have any real malice in him. But legal threats are a serious thing, particularly in the U.S., where, due to the way our court system is structured, it's entirely possible to become bankrupt through litigation that never even results in a judgment. When you threaten to sue someone, you threaten to put them through years of stress and to cost them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. (The WMF 12017:. There was never any indication Mark knew Corbie or had any connection or, despite the valid reason for a block, I would have asked for a review. Look, there may be people that don't like me here, that think I make poor arguments or have misguided positions. I accept criticism. Some may even question how real I am about my positions or who I am. But the fact is I try to show in everything, whether I am right or wrong, I am at least genuine and I stand for something. I admire that quality in others. As much as I want Corbie and IG here, and I so do (I miss them), I was floored by the information Corbie and Mark knew each other and in my view that made Mark an involved admin and he shouldn't have made the block. 5439: 10947: 10158: 7694: 3669:

more than disagree on. I'm very strongly in favour of admin accountability. I'd like to see it become slightly easier to become an admin, much easier to git rid of a problem admin, and for a desysop to not be a permanent stain on an editor's record that means they'd probably never pass an RfA again. I'd love to see a community-based desysop process for removing admins who have lost the community's trust or confidence, and I'd love to have a venue like XRV that had teeth to censure. I just think the whole meatpuppetry case was handled rather clumsily. All ArbCom had to do was say "for policy purposes, these two editors can be treated as one" (which is

7291:

this... emphathy. I can imagine how hurtful their tone-policing remark against you was and how hurt you felt, and how their A9 appeared to be tone-deaf, which also prompted leeky (and, finding myself convinced by leeky's stance, also me) to vote neutral instead of supporting. But then... The Night Watch wrote an appending to A9. It felt like a very emotional, honest, sincere and simply heartwarming apology, and full recognition of their error. It made me feel like there is truly something else to Knowledge than just its brutal atmosphere and white-on-black text everywhere. Leeky switched to support, and so did I.

5261:: I considered that approach too. Ultimately what I felt was, for a non-controversial deletion of content, all that's needed to restore to draftspace is an editor in good standing saying "This shouldn't be deleted", and we had that. As I noted in the close, anyone can move it back to mainspace if they want, and the next step would be AfD. It's just that restoring it outright seemed unlikely to improve the encyclopedia, due to the current state of the page. I don't think it's a given that it will "rot in draftspace", though. I mean, it may well, but it's also possible someone will take interest. I don't think 10897: 10200: 4948: 15325: 10246: 7295:

just feels upsetting to read and see. I feel like The Night Watch deserves better. After all, this is just a losing situation for them, their A9 came off as out-of-touch to some, and when they went the other way and actually lived up to their mistake, they get criticized all the same. There is literally nothing they can do! Apparently the only way for The Night Watch to truly gain the community's trust is to completely disregard you and your feelings, and to stay silent on the matter. But they didn't, and it seems they're paying the price.

15357: 5048:. But thinking about it, I believe he had no idea of how things work here, and made the legal threat as he may have not realised it's not permitted. I do really believe he was genuinely upset and felt insulted by the remarks of an editor who basically said that he was a "nobody" and that member now I see had been banned not long afterwards. Given Mr. Hamilton's age (81) and the circumstances that caused him to react in the way he did, is it possible to consider unblocking him a month and 2 weeks earlier than his block expiry? 12110:

questions and debating to get to some truth, putting on different hats. Other times I imagine them as researchers doing their own research, as a scholar. But still colleagues. My shift to this thinking has been positive: I get less frustrated and more complacent with the wills of other people when things don't go my way. It's all culture and capital, but it's also in the eye of the beholder. I can summarily reject any cultural capital someone has accrued. And we can get more ideal outcomes that way, individually. Maybe.

4699: 11751:

some of us are wonderful, but some legacy editors have burnt out and it comes across and its part of why AN* is a cesspool. Yes, there are the POV pushers and trolls, but there are also a lot of us (I include myself on both sides of this) hashing old grudges and it's not productive. If I'd been AWOL long enough pre COVID I'd likely never have asked for the mop back. I try not to be part of the problem, but I know I'm not always the solution either. I wish you peace with your decision and hope to still see you around.

14320: 12787: 10876: 10183: 8757: 7563: 1048:. This means a lot to me, especially given the circumstances and given the date (see userpage footnote 2). After years of, as you allude to, mostly working on improving articles by trimming them down, it's been a very eye-opening experience to build a full-length article from the ground up. I'm glad I got to have this experience with a list that's meaningful to me, although the downside of that is being very aware of how quickly this list grows. A small fraction of those killed overall, but as Masaq' Hub says in 12866: 9931: 991: 12333: 1279: 4014:, you said: "I've always tried to be an editor who's a leftist, not a leftist editor. It saddens me that some others are seemingly unable to draw that distinction for themselves." Hearing this from you gave me pause as, in context, this to me feels more like an attack on the characters of editors (including me) who differed from you, than a contribution to the debate on the issue at hand. Now that that discussion has more or less concluded, would you consider retracting that remark? Kind regards, 9321: 591: 479: 13517:), is that it's not appropriate to judge editors by their religion, sexuality, ethnicity, et cetera. Saying (or implying) that you saw someone as likely to be biased based on their religion/ethnicity is still doing that, even if your ultimate conclusion is a favorable one. The one-off favorable conclusion doesn't actually offset the initial biased assumption, and calls into question whether you would be inclined to (explicitly or not) use religion or ethnicity as the basis for criticism if you 7299:

RfA candidate they never encountered, but I am wondering if this thought crossed your mind. I just feel like what's happening at this RfA is great injustice and makes me feel depressed about the whole thing. It felt like a personal defeat for me when Tails Wx withdrew - that is because as a fellow furry and asexual, I just couldn't help but root for him. But alas. And now The Night Watch can get their RfA sunk over developing as a person and fully recognizing their mistake. I hate this.

13522:

someone acknowledging affiliation with a specific group should be seen as potentially tainting their (quasi)administrative actions, and whether that's an approach that is fair to minority groups, given that members of less marginalized groups are often able to signal their membership without it being seen as remarkable, but are no less prone to bias (for instance, a man saying "I have a husband" might be seen as showing bias on LGBTQ topics, but a man saying "I have a wife" is not; yet

14391: 10926: 341: 12845: 10851: 10137: 8824: 7677: 4602: 1362: 5668: 5147: 13211:

of attempted outing and attacks that no editor should have to endure on this site because of it, generally with zero support from Knowledge at large. Like many new religious movements, Falun Gong much prefers to make grand claims of religious persecution rather than discussing the reality of the organization and its extremely well-funded, highly political media arms. It is no doubt going prepping its agenda for the upcoming presidential election, just like it did last time.

13195:, who will gang up to silence them, whether by endless talk page and process lawyering or more straightforward revert-warring. Falun Gong-aligned editors will attempt to manipulate the site's coverage to reflect the group's preferred narratives, hoping to return our coverage to the earlier, Falun Gong-approved version. In addition to this necessary but obnoxious work, said user might even have have to deal with a comment here and there like the one you made (quoted above). 10225: 13566: 1876: 1598: 1538: 1453: 709: 123: 7709: 12266: 6733:. He has authored lots of scientific books and papers and is well-known in the scientific community. In regard to his works at different universities in Iran and as he is well-known in Iran, a page was created for him on Knowledge. But a guy has deleted the page after less than a day from creation (without any reason). As he is one of the most famous professors in electrical engineering in Iran and was the dean in university of Applied Sciences and Technology (named 5188: 1492: 7165:

I use my email inbox the same way -- if a message needs responding to but I'm not ready to respond, I remark it as unread. It's not a great solution -- I have messages months old that need responding to. Oops, including an invoice that's probably at least that old, yow. :D At any rate, third, I intended more gentle ribbing than anything else, and apologies for getting into mental health territory with that, it hadn't occurred to me that might be what I was doing.

885: 8889: 8778: 7606: 11998:

over newbie mistakes I made in haste of trying to improve articles, in good faith, but ending up not doing so. We also clashed on ideas I think were miscommunications that, for my part, I don't think I took in consideration enough. But I loved Corbie being here as another voice. I never had an issue with her position on Indigenous topics as we generally lined up. My issue with her is found in what was discovered or was relayed in the AN discussion you started.

1971: 14076: 2263: 5507: 4036:. I've considered your request. Given that multiple editors cited explicitly political rationales for their stances in that thread, I do not think it was inappropriate to criticize, in general terms and without naming names, editors who were putting their political views ahead of the encyclopedia's interests. There's more I could say, but I said I was done with that thread, so I'm going to stick to that and continue working on building an encyclopedia. 7435:

convinced would make a good admin, and to also not want people to be a dick to them? If you think that it's "really unfortunate" that I a) made a comment addressing the nuances of the situation and expressing sympathy for the candidate's situation and b) criticized someone assuming bad faith of the candidate, then I... well I really don't know what to say, Barkeep. This is one of the most utterly surreal talkpage messages I have received in 11 years.

11451: 9967: 8571: 13899: 4939: 4593: 10764: 9581: 9400: 9208: 6644: 6266: 5605: 3152: 14635: 14198: 13793: 13109: 10697: 10065: 8502: 14370: 8803: 7585: 875: 10643: 10555: 9873: 9791: 9738: 9656: 7034: 6541: 6400: 6315: 12176: 12820: 8866: 7656: 880: 15267: 8841: 7631: 3360: 14353: 14026: 2084: 23: 10433:

655, in send r = adapter.send(request, **kwargs) File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/adapters.py", line 498, in send raise ConnectionError(err, request=request) requests.exceptions.ConnectionError: ('Connection aborted.', ConnectionResetError(104, 'Connection reset by peer')) CRITICAL: Exiting due to uncaught exception <class 'requests.exceptions.ConnectionError': -->

5635: 890: 10818: 9145: 3541:

and then forgotten.) Anyway, if on this page I select the text "wan Tansin li toki pona" and then select "translate", Google translate appears, and tells me that the sentence is Arabic, and means "I want to talk to you". If instead I get to Google translate by a Google search, and paste the same sentence in, it still thinks it's Arabic, but now translates it as "And if you forget me, you will protect us".

9455: 2732: 6976: 3636: 10519: 9530: 9283: 9074: 2524: 11503: 8692: 4823: 3289:. I wish a few more administrators realised the very basic and simple fact which is the main point of that page. Many times I have been carefully watching a repeatedly created title to catch the next sockpuppet, only to be thwarted by someone coming along and protecting it. A related case is a personal photograph, often on Commons but sometimes on WP, which is used only for persistent 13241:: I stand by the statement that no editor should attempt to disqualify another editor's fitness to edit based on their religion. That is true for Judaism, it is true for Falun Gong, and it is true for Scientology. That is not the same as attempting to disqualify someone based on improper coordinated editing that may in some cases correlate with religion. (I would know. I busted 11771:. The people who have good introspection are never the ones who need to have it. I can't recall ever having a problem with how you handled anything... But either way, like I said, the problem is rarely the individuals, and much more often the system we've all created. And I don't have a solution for that really, other than to back away and hope someone else fixes it eventually. 14816:: I actually did have it boldfaced in the first draft, but I decided I didn't want to put too fine a point on that and come off as hostile. I think it's best to let people read the full close and focus on whichever details they want to. But I might be convinced otherwise if there's particularly glaring media misunderstandings. Can you point to ones you've seen? I only see 4891:"NeuroSex" continues to repeatedly post misleading/incorrect information with impunity using illicit sockpuppets. Unfortunately, even when such sockpuppet accounts are banned, their edits often remain. Knowledge admins choosing to leave the sockpuppets' edits up creates a powerful incentive for NeuroSex to continue their course of conduct of posting disinformation. 11863:, as in my mind i was a lowly noob with a single GA and he an Experienced Content Writer - i recall finding out about how he'd been treated previously shortly before his death, and i guess i don't have a single solid conclusion to this thought, but it's made me reflect a lot on my short tenure here. i think we can all learn a lot from Vami, and like him, be 11683:(If you've had something to say and I missed your name, please take no offense.) I recorded this back in March, in response to many of y'all either asking why I'd resigned, saying you hoped to see me back, or equally saying you completely understood. I never got around to editing it down, but was spurred to do that after a conversation yesterday with 5803:

the source is not about the massacre; which is what it was used for, but just a ceremony commemorating it a few years ago. It's not really substantive. But then I realized, aha, that may not be fair use in Polish law. It's definitely not the same thing as the hand translation with translated template that is usually what I am doing with translation.

14278:. Anyways, hope the list is of some use plotting a way forward. My schedule's a bit wonky the next few weeks, running up and down the Northeast Corridor to deal with two and a half familial medical crises, but I hope to get some editing time in on the D.C. article, and I think I've found a few people who'll have time to do deeper dives than I can. 6892:: Yes, I was only referring to standard-summary rollbacks (or rollbacks where the added summary offers no greater clarity). And of course, the occasional mistake of which button one hits is understandable. It sounds like you're being conscientious about your reverts, and that's the whole idea of my approach to granting rollback, so keep at it. 3868:((re Rjjiii)), Lab leak and zoonotic theories are not equally likely. "Unknown" is the language of several sources and is not principally about lab leaks - but rather uncertain aspects of timing, intermediate host, etc. Jps and I are having a more fruitful exchange along these lines on the article talk page, which I invite you to join. 7287:

said was completely correct and fully appropriate, and your entire point that people can and should be judged for their politial views was just a truth that people voting against you just did not want to hear. At least that is my view here, because I do not mean any disrespect to people who voted the way they did at your RfA.

4207: 4086: 13250:

specifically, to knock it off. I stand by that, and it is hard to convey how disappointed I am that, half a year later, you not only refuse to accept the warning but have dwelled on it to such a degree that you have spontaneously demanded an apology. If I were still an admin, I'd be inclined to take this comment as

13438:), and to me here that just meant saying how I feel and seeing if anyone agreed, not preparing a meticulously worded objection that could start the papertrail for further proceedings, which ironically led to stronger wording than I've used in cases where I expected a dispute to land at ArbCom. In other words, 1191: 9826: 1828:

along the way. If I ever do it make it to 47, I will let you know if something special happens, and if you ever decide to pursue a FAC, I would be more than happy to answer any questions or provide any pointers. It can be a very intimidating space, but there are also a lot of wonderful editors over there.

662:

making lots of small improvements over a small number of big ones, it's rare that I get the chance to look at something and say, "Here's a way that I really, noticeably, made the encyclopedia better through one single effort." Which I hope I'll be able to say here, depending on how the POV cleanup goes.

14959:

I would think boldfacing it could help, as I don't really see that mischaracterization as being equally harmful (we are, indeed, not making editorial decisions based on court authorities), while it might otherwise be missed by journalists conflating our close with the Supreme Court order.However, you

14171:

Thanks for sticking up for me, Tamzin. I'm having a hard enough time already with my identity, and now I'm getting collapsed? That's almost like being canceled, isn't it? I'm being oppressed. That's it: I'm going to pet my dog and make creme brulees for my kids. (Is that a gay enough thing to do? I'm

13709:

A great attitude. Well, I am no expert on the matters at hand, being born boring, but I stumbled across it accidentally and I wondered if the claim that calling transgender men "male" could be slightly awkward is correct (and if so, why). Valereee has you listed as an expert on their userpage (and as

13490:

Sorry if this came out wrong Tamzin, I saw your name today so I came here to leave a note. I really think your work here is great. Today, I would want you to be an administrator. Good job on the ADL close you showed great impartiality. I think I have been staring at my screen too long and it came out

13472:

I saw your name today so I just stopped by to drop you a note. I raised an eyebrow when I saw you helped close the ADL discussion because of the star of David on your user page. However, I could not find fault with the close. Another thing, if I had been actively editing when you stood at RFA I would

13404:

Just dropping a note to let you know, I have no issues with the thread you raised at ANI. You are someone who has been on the of a particular brand of editor, different to the one I end up on but no less militant and convinced of their "truth" of the world (yours are actually worse than mine.) I hold

13210:

However, that above quoted comment from you was offensive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. It helped nothing. I write about a lot of new religious movement topics on Knowledge (and only stumbled into Falun Gong-land when researching their claims about folklore). I have had to deal with various instances

11978:

I want to thank you for posting this. It was thought-provoking. I took it in, yesterday, and waited a day before deciding how I wanted to reply. Most importantly, I agree with Valereee that what matters is what makes you healthier and happier. As I often say, it's only a website. The other thing that

11858:

as a newer editor (i've only been consistently active since last august or so) and an autistic person, and as someone who loves people-watching and lurking around trying to understand the dynamics of human social capital, i've found wikipedia to be well... exactly how you describe. i have a bad habit

11750:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We share some of the same. I think everytime people scream Cabal/Unblockables (I'm guilty of the latter) they tend to get partially ignored because their behavior is under a microscope for something. However, there's often a grain of truth. I'm a legacy editor and

10432:

zinbot.err <== return self.request('GET', url, **kwargs) File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 542, in request resp = self.send(prep, **send_kwargs) File "/data/project/zinbot/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line

8135:

meaning any of ' correctness', ' goodness', ' simplicity', or ' peace'. Part of that's about one's own wellbeing, sure. But the greater part is about one's place in the world. At a certain point I realized that I was interacting with the world in a way that didn't match my own sense of self. And then

7493:

Question 9 directly gives them a chance to respond to your oppose. And the chance that would happen is predictable. I suppose A9 wasn't predictable exactly but that for me doesn't mean you bear no responsibility for what happened, including A9 and the reaction to it. Despite your characterizing it as

7370:

One thing that leaves me wondering is that you did mention the increasingly likely possibility of the RfA becoming a narrow call that will have to resolved through 'crats. Of course, other possibilities on the table are withdrawal, be it from the enormous stress that The Night Watch is going through,

7306:

Ok, I am so sorry for this long text. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts! I am again sorry if you find this inappropiate or if I'm showing off my inexperience by unknowingly breaking a rule by writing this. Feel free to warn me, revert this, or maybe just ignore it if that is the case. But

7164:

Hey, T! Well, first, I'm so happy for you that whatever strategy you've found is working so well that you're feeling a true sense of delight with it! That's great. And second, I get it about needing to keep messages "live" (for want of a better term) in order to prevent yourself from forgetting them.

6844:

contradicted the source that was currently included at the end of the sentence, and a brief Google search has found conflicting information as to whether or not the Los Angeles Opera are involved & in what sense, in addition to conflicting information regarding the year and place of the premiere.

5806:

I edited the text down to bullet points. Your opinion is solicited as to whether I am now in compliance. But I also know that a copyvio in the history is still a copyvio, so I think I am supposed to ask for help at this point. I clicked around and found the list of admins willing to do rev del's, and

3828:

I am hopeful that this may be the end of it. I am fine with people skipping the section as I think it should really only be relevant for those with a keen interest in the sausage-making/inside-baseball of these matters. If I think there may be cause to expand, I'll ask your advice, if you don't mind.

3811:: I think it's fine collapsed, as long as you understand that, collapsed, some might not read it. Either way, you're "only" at ~160% the limit, while Sennalen is approaching 300%, and I try to be even-handed on word limit. If you have more to say, we can discuss an extension, but again, fine for now. 3052:

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?

801:

civil person, I'm not sure this is one I ever expected to get.As someone who both likes to assume good faith and has a low tolerance for bigotry, I always see this kind of thing as a win-win: If the assumption of good faith was correct, then we avert more hurt feelings; and if it doesn't, then people

13913:

hi, i don't really know exactly what to put here but i guess i'll just thank you, tamzin, for inspiring me to edit. you were really an inspiration. and even though i don't edit much i'm forever indebted to you in helping me find a new hyperfixation and transitioning from a wikipedia reader to editor

13851:

I indeed have found myself in that camp and I'm actually studying sociology at the moment as well... so the "social capital" of WP has taken on a much more sad meaning to me. Knowing that an ugly but I guess inevitable part of society has made its way onto this project is... yeah, pretty sad. petty.

13724:

I am not aware of any authority, descriptive or prescriptive, that considers it correct to call trans men "men" but not to call them "male". As far as I know that's just a lexicological myth borne of hasty explanations of the gender/sex distinction. "Male" and "female" can refer to gender, "man" and

13337:

Again, the organized manipulation was and is the problem, which I've repeatedly noted (and which peer-reviewed material from experts have noted), and your invocation of antisemitism in that context was outrageous and bizarre. Adherents don't call the shots on our coverage, organized or not, and they

12096:

I joined this site immediately after COVID lockdowns began. My mental model of Knowledge reminds me a lot of politics and the judiciary in a democracy like in America. Social capital is sowed and reaped to enact changes, and uninvolved people make binding decisions like a judge would. I think it's a

12077:

Thank you for both of these. And thank you from the bottom of my heart for providing a transcript of the audio file! I was very surprised by some of the things you said there. (I would never have thought you shared my distaste for being a hall monitor/prefect!) I may share my thoughts, here or in an

11997:

I am thankful for your response, Tamzin. There were serious inaccuracies with what Mr. Keeler wrote. I have no doubt he is an amazing professor but he got his research wrong if that was his ultimate summation of Knowledge and editors here. For a bit of clarity, Corbie and I clashed at times, usually

8395:

from your application of the existing rules. That is the most important skill that an administrator can have, because the administrator toolset is for enforcing community consensus and the editor toolset is often for trying to change it. Since I trust your perspective on whether or not you should be

8298:

I only just now saw this. Your resignation comes at a time when I most likely came to the same realization as you. Two months ago, it dawned on me that I should have never been talking negatively about other editors behind their backs. I feel like such a better person.. I am genuinely happy for you.

7867:

Tamzin, I'm not going to try to talk you out of resigning, because you know what's best for yourself, but you've consistently exceeded expectations as an admin and your presence on the admin team will certainly be missed. I'm glad you aren't retiring from the project entirely, I'm sure we can expect

7520:

because I felt a degree of responsibility for the state of things, including bad-faith-assuming opposes like the one that you are saying I should not have argued against. I'm really confused by what's happening in this conversation. You seem determined to dissuade me of things I never said, which is

7374:

You did have to go through the 'crat vote in your own RfA. It was definitely all narrow, both the actual support ratio, and the 'crat chat was also not unanimous, with two 'crats arguing that there was no consensus for your promotion. Thankfully, however, you made it - you got the mop and you use it

7302:

Your oppose was extremely impactful, and every single oppose against The Night Watch is related to it and the incident that prompted your oppose in the first place. If you were to change your vote, it would have turned this whole thing upside down. And I wonder if that wouldn't be the right thing to

7294:

And we know what happened next. Now The Night Watch is experiencing an oppose wave on its own just because for that appendix. Because it's "melodramatic", because it's weak, because it's self-flagellating, because it's supposedly disqualifying for someone who aspired to become an admin. Honestly, it

7139:

in late 2020, I wound up with a lot of great insights into myself, but also wound up a lot less functional than before. Basically everything I did was on impulse, and it took exceptional energy to plan things out more than a day in advance. In a lot of ways that made life Hell, but that bare-minimum

5237:

actually never objected to the deletion of the content itself, rather the objection was purely jurisdictional—wanting it at AfD instead. Even after prodding him to give a rationale for keeping the content, he couldn't do it. Because there is no one wanting to improve the content, draftifying doesn't

5011:

Thanks, Firefly. I've given a 5-year CTOP semi to the Wilson article and, with some regret, 1-year semis to both affected talkpages. This has been going on for 6 years and shows no signs of stopping without intervention. NeuroSex has no shortage of better things to do with their time; hopefully this

1467:

For your conduct in the Inverted Zebra ANI thread. I doubt I'd be able to keep my cool nearly as well as you did when personally attacked. Your writing managed to convey being justifiably angry without being aggressive. Major props to you for your conduct there, good Mx; I hope I can be even half as

14433:

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or

12109:

But halfway between when I joined and now, around 2022, is when I think I started to see other editors as colleagues. Proper colleagues. I imagine everyone in a discussion as sitting around a drawing room in a mansion, fire blazing, we're all in red robes drinking wine. We're asking each other deep

12020:

You made a fine admin and your resignation, though painful to see, was understandable. I appreciated your candidness and thoroughness with what you wrote. I hope there is a response to your open letter. Tamzin, when I say I wish all health and happiness to you I mean ever single word. Thank you for

10265:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope

7882:

What the others said. And your frankness in stepping back and evaluating your own behaviour is greatly admired. If and when you are ever ready to work as an admin again, know that you will be well-placed to mentor a new generation of admins and break the vicious cycle. Of course, content work is no

7847:

It's truly sad to see you resign, knowing how much you mean to the admin team. Your work as an admin has a significant impact, but I completely understand and respect your decision. I'm not asking you to reconsider because I respect your choice. I sincerely hope you'll still be around to offer your

7378:

However, should The Night Watch have to go through all this? The 'crat chat, this cold process where they have to watch whether the 'crats argue in their favor or not? I feel like it was terrible in your case, and it would be just as terrible now. I also find something chilling in the scenario that

7298:

So, why am I even writing this? Because I thought, and wanted to ask you, if maybe you feel like you could change your vote in the light of this development. Like I said, this is a scary thing for me to do, because I do not want to come off as some canvasser making himself look like an idiot for an

7290:

And here comes the RfA of The Night Watch. I am writing this because despite the fact the vote is currently looking good for them, I can't help but just feel... frustrated about this whole thing. Not because I know The Night Watch or have any right to be so emotionally involved in it, but it's just

6860:

that could have potentially been used to insert similar content into the article, but - when patrolling (e.g. using Huggle) - this sort of investigation & rectification is something it's not always possible to do (especially when I'm not familiar with the topic in question), and - when the diff

5867:

Honestly, I usually wouldn't bother with a few paragraphs quoted from a source on talk (a gray area in theory, in practice a ~0% chance of ever going to court), but since you're concerned, sure, I've revdelled the three edits. FWIW, Google Translate does have a "websites" option on it... but when I

5802:

I have been struggling around verifying sources for Holocaust articles (surprise, there are a lot of problems) and with some effort and concentration produced a machine translation of an archived dead link. I then lost my mind and pasted THE WHOLE THING to the article talk page, my point being that

4775:

the "reasonably active" criterion. If this was a matter of going from 0RR all the way to 3RR, I might be more hesitant, but, as discussed in the original AE appeal, this whole topic area is under 1RR regardless, so this is only a moderate step down. So, sure, I hereby lift the sanction. Please make

4304:

describing collective emotional abuse, throughout the course of which she gets progressively drunker, and which starts with her drinking King Cobra out of the bottle in a bathtub surrounded by trash bags, that got me questioning whether this was what I wanted to write about for my hobby. So yeah, a

3668:

Hi Tamzin, just came by a philosophical discussion more than anything and to say thank you for your feedback in your guide. Yours was the first one to be published with substantive commentary on the candidates and up to that point it had felt a bit like typing into a black hole! I think we agree on

3540:

If while I am editing on my phone, but not on my computer, I select some text in a foreign language, a box with various options pops up, including Google translation. (I think it is probably a feature of the particular browser I am using, but it just could be some option or script I've put in place

3293:

violations by an editor who keeps coming back as various socks, and naively puts the same image in each new user page. So easy to check "what links here" every now and then, until someone deletes it, thereby cleverly persuading the sockpuppeteer to recreate it under a title that I'm not watching...

1827:

Congrats on the two GAs, and I think it is awesome that you've done technical work as well. I have absolutely zero ideas how to even remotely do anything with bots so I am impressed by that. I am proud of my work in the FAC process and very thankful for all the editors and reviewers who have helped

950:

Despite my well-known affinity for Queen Esther (Esther 8:6 tattoo pic forthcoming on Commons once I've got the enby and agender colors touched up), I've never done much for Purim. Don't really know why that is, just how it's sorted out. But I'll never say no to something tasty! Chag sameach to you

15077:

Anyone wanting to make a political statement should consider adding something to their user page. This kind of issue will arise again and each case will have to be handled on its merits. Pointing to some bold text on an old talk page won't help. If an article were written like that close, it would

14917:

I see your point, but I'm still not sold that boldfacing that bit would do more good than harm. Imagine a mischaracterizatiom in the opposite direction: "Western Wikipedians reject Indian Supreme Court's authority". It was a delicate edge to walk, and I'm still inclined to let the full close speak

13296:

A reminder: We don't write articles around the preferences of religious groups, period, and when a religious org, like any other org, attempts to influence coverage, it needs to be called out explicitly and clearly. Invoking notions of antisemitism when editors like myself do exactly is absolutely

13292:

I strongly suggest you consider the difference between a hugely diverse and ancient religion and a new religious movement centered around a single man whose adherents seek to polish his movement's media coverage by way of manipulating Knowledge articles and the fallout that can occur when conflate

12637:

Talked with a wikifriend on the phone for the first time yesterday. I was really nervous but it was still fun in the end. Anyway, we talked briefly about what it means to get caught up in something bigger than yourself. You know, I think it was unfair for you too to get caught up in something like

12056:

I certainly hope that I didn't come across as supporting or aspiring "playing the game" and marching in rigid formation. That's just how editing in CTOPs plays out with the sanctions regime in place, and the long-term editors in those topics know how to toe the line, and often how to get others to

8419:

I somehow just came across this -- it slipped through my radar -- when I was confused by your lack of an admin flag in a page history, figured a script was on the fritz...boy, was I surprised. I'm sorry to see that you have given up the bit but do understand your reasoning and empathize. Thank you

7471:

I think you may have read my addendum in haste. Your implied question is answered in the second sentence. As to Grandpallama's comment, I suppose there might be a certain wiki-worldview in which assumption of bad faith is no worse than bringing up an old argument, but it's a worldview that's quite

6493:

I do think with the advent of contemporary newspaper sources from the Knowledge Library that we could be entering a golden age of articles on recent historical events. I think for the first decade of my time on Knowledge such sources were inaccessible and it seemed that the distant past was better

5119:

Hi Tamzin. I doubt if the person that Mr. Hamilton threatened legal action towards would be concerned judging by their behavior. Other people would be yes. I'd probably agree with you there. Anyway, he only has a month or two to go. I have no issue with what you say. So we'll leave it as it is and

3843:

I don't know of anything else I might need to say, but as more and more people excavate old diffs to accuse me of different things, I reiterate that there is too much for me to respond to under the current procedural vehicle. I encourage you to join the conversation on my Talk page about whether I

2894:

If you're ever looking for a new project, I think it would be very helpful for categorizing redirects if more redirect category templates could take a parameter to define the term the redirect is a modifcation from, for use with redirects that are modifications of other redirects (i.e. are avoided

1831:

You are right that this site can be toxic at times, particularly from experienced users, and I've definitely reacted poorly in the past. The best I can do is to try and learn from each experience and hopefully be better for the future. I'd be curious on what the reverse of WP:STOCKS would be. I am

543:

It's a shame we'll likely never know exactly how many people were behind these six accounts. My personal hypothesis is that it was six people who knew each other off-wiki, with one, perhaps Moksha, ghost-writing some talk-page comments for the others. (If true, that would mean they were done in by

14281:

On that note, if any talkpage watchers are in D.C.: 1) I will be there from late on the 5th to midday on the 9th, with moderate availability, and am always happy to grab lunch or coffee (well, not actual coffee, see above) with just about anyone, schedule permitting; and 2) feel free to check out

13521:

agree with a Jew's close of an Israel-related RfC. You won't find me in the sanctions thread, because I don't want to play any part in the fucked-up way this site handles user conduct issues; but if I can give some constructive, restorative advice, I'd ask you to consider why it is that you think

13254:

evidence that you cannot edit civilly in the topic area, and impose a topic ban. But fortunately for both of us, I am not an admin anymore. Which means that, in fact, I couldn't take back what I said even if I wanted to, because it is substantively the same as the logged warning, which I lack the

12576:

You made me laugh with that revelation of yours. I don't know if you're willing to help me, and I know we might not click properly, but I think I can learn from you and maybe someday communicate on-wiki about how I operate. Treat yourself well, alright? Your mental health is the highest priority.

12105:

is the randomization of assigning cases (i.e. threads) to an admin in a pool. Their specialization is to deal with these cases, and dole out decisions consistently. Likewise, some users specialize in being justices, sitting on the supreme court (an analogy I think is unassailable). Specialization

7968:

You're completely right about the toxic culture here, but Knowledge is so resistant to change that I doubt it will be fixed in the foreseeable future. It can be very discouraging at times, and there have been multiple times where I've also considered stepping back to focus on what really matters.

7931:

Most of Knowledge is a cesspit and the worst part is that it drags down people who are here to build an encyclopedia. Something I've been working hard on for the last couple of years is only engaging in activities that help build an encyclopedia and in being as positive as I can (with things like

7286:

I mean, you know that first-hand, where RfA is just some cuttthroat business where people look for scandals to ignite just to sink the candidate down. You made a very rightful comment about Trump and Trumpism, only for it to become a huge outrage that almost sunk your entire RfA. And yet what you

7282:

Oki, onto the matter of the subject. Since a few months I've been participating in RfAs, getting to see the community in action and seeing how the entire process works. Honestly, this entire thing gives me anxiety and I cannot really imagine ever trying my luck there myself. Unless it takes me 10

5413:

Hi Tamzin! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to see you in Toronto, and hoping we'll have more opportunities to hang out in the coming year! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make

1823:

Thank you for your response and the kind words. I will read through WP:CIR in the near future. I enjoy reading through these kinds of essays, and I agree that no one is great or even competent at every single aspect of Knowledge because this site is so vast and dense. I think it is good to have a

15125:

below. I wonder if there'd be any interest in an essay on writing difficult closes? Not the consensus-weighing part—hopefully anyone taking on a high-profile close already knows how to do that—but the strategies of how to phrase things in a way that will leave everyone... maybe not happy, but at

12908:

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

10993:

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

8746:

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

7724:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are

13315:

If you can't see the difference between preventing organized manipulation of religious articles and targeting people for whatever religious beliefs they may privately hold, you should not be editing in the topic area. There was consensus to warn you for this last year. Please either accept this

13202:

and related articles, including information about their compound, founder-leader, and well beyond. That has made me an on-site target for editors who don't like that and aggressively attempt to get this information removed. It has led to me receiving threats, veiled and otherwise. As some other

8098:

Tamzin, I only just found out, and I want to let you know how much I appreciate you, and how much I appreciate your work here. Definitely, your own well-being matters far more than mopping up some messes on a website. If you ever feel like talking to me about it, you know where my talk page is.

1658:

gets cited in a lot of horrible and mean-spirited contexts, but there's a valuable lesson in there if one takes the time to read it, which is that no one is competent at everything. I'd like to think of myself as a fairly well-rounded editor—2 GAs, lots of projectspace work, some technical work

661:

Thank you—for this barnstar and for your own diligence. I was worried that someone would look at this and see it as too complicated, and as involving blocks that were too likely to cause drama, and just punt on it and leave the whole topic area still in disarray. As someone who's always favored

314:

Update 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC): You know what, screw it. Keeping track of which to list is more trouble than it's worth, and I don't need any one-hit immunity. I'm aware of all of them. Even the weird ones like the Shakespeare authorship question or Waldorf education. If anything, I'm more

14607:

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

13249:

topic area.) There is a difference between having religious views related to a subject one edits and editing at the behest of religious leadership. You, and a number of other editors, failed to heed that distinction, which is why I warned editors in the Falun Gong topic area generally, and you

12541:

That would be an extraordinary claim. And we all know extraordinary claims have steep sourcing requirements. Mere accusation may have worked for some previously. Here you'd need proof AND a consensus. It's amazing how some people don't realize this almost always works in justice's favor. If ad

12100:

No one person is capable of reading all of ANI. Users go in and out inconsistently, resulting in inconsistent outcomes. (I never considered this to present a challenge to some on the autistic spectrum, and it's worth more of my time to consider.) One useful trick I think we ought to learn from

7434:

Huh? I don't see where I said I didn't want to see the RfA fail. In fact, I've conveyed the exact opposite by declining to strike or weaken my oppose. I also don't see where I said this course of events was unforeseeable. Is it really so much to want to be able to oppose a candidate you aren't

6184:

I did explain that the report was an accident and I was not in the right state of mind. I didn't even look at the warning to do not do it again because I was too busy with other things outside of Knowledge. If I did lie too many times about not making unnecessary username reports, I would have

539:

I think it was also Blablubbs who first suggested Moksha as part of it, as we looked at other players in the topic area. Then I found the comment from the Swami sock accusing them, and there went the next few hours of my life, digging through a history that grew more and more horrifying as the

15018:

I am fairly confident that, unfortunate though it is, the ship has already sailed on our making the parties to the court case, the court itself, the broader stakeholders, and the world at large aware of the fact that this was in essence a voluntary decision predicated on internal policies and

11266:

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please

7345:

As much as (1) and (2) sway me on an emotional level, I do not want to vote against my own perception of what's best for the project: Adminship isn't a reward for being a good person; it's an assessment of one's fitness to serve in that role. So I hope that that ambivalence came through in my

1663:

of areas of this project that I have literally no fucking clue how to manage. And it's really only luck that I haven't in recent years had the pleasure of having some admin show up on my talk page and say "Umm, that's not at all how this thing is done. I've unbroken it for you. Please be more

13636:

It's something I worry about a little, that I say something wrong! I was always the "quirky loner kid", and social situations cause me high stress. Yes, even online ones, go figure. It's always a learning process for me. But yeah, you're fun to talk to. Don't overexert yourself, per usual :)

7494:

such I don't think Grandpallama's is bad faith; I don't agree with the characterization of it that way, I agree 100% with yours for similar reasons of how I acted when I was young and on the internet, but there is absolutely evidence to support the characterization Grandpallama gave to it.

5938:

If you ever find yourself wanting to collaborate with someone on a green side article, I'm your anthropomorphic plant. I'll find a lovely red link or stub with amazing pictures on iNaturalist and maybe even a weird fact and teach you all the "secrets" to understanding the strange language of

13859:

I'd like to do better with my article writing and constructive contribution. And thank you for steering me (and I'm sure many others) towards the right direction, towards the things that actually MATTER. Every article makes an amazing impact for crying out loud. I always find myself on here

9888: 1668:

my RfA. You have... holy shit, 45 of those. If I live a long life and continue focusing on content maybe I'll hit that number before I die. When I do go for my first FAC, you can bet it'll be with oodles of behind-the-scenes hand-holding from friends who've done it before, to make up for my

13860:

researching things I'm studying, and oftentimes, WP beats any other lame search result Google could give me. And that is thanks to the tireless (and often thankless) hard work of editors like Vami--I'd like to be a completionist, to honor his good name with good editing... not a quarreler.

8919:

Remember that any content promoted after 27 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

7278:

First of all, I am really sorry if writing this breaks any rule, be it a written or unwritten one, or if it comes off as Lourdes-style canvassing and pressuring. Heck, I am a rather random editor with quite a humble amount of edits, with few connections and somehow limited knowledge of the

8167:

thoughtful reply. For what it's worth, one fish's opinion is that getting more in touch with one's most appropriate path is very much a part of achieving well-being. But whatever the inner motivation, I understand the dissatisfaction with the culture at this website, and I wish you well.

10994:

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

6808:

I just wanted to clarify a few things. Firstly, I wanted to check if this condition was intended for default rollback (with the bland edit summary) only, or if it includes the use of rollback with a custom edit summary and/or using tools like Huggle (which can revert with a summary like

14898:

The name was preemptively removed before the RfC closed, and the synthesized headlines give the impression that this removal was done in response to a court order. I believe we need to strongly emphasize that we didn't do that, in the case of further misreporting/synthesized headlines.

14685: 11243: 7379:

you hinted at in your comment on your oppose. That should the RfA fail this time, jaded and cynical The Night Watch could try again in about a year or so. A bit depressing for me to envision that one's world has to lose their colors for the community to deem them ready for the mop.

6861:

showed up on my screen - it seemed like the type of contentious material that BLPREMOVE says should be reverted immediately. A worry that came to mind was that not being able to revert unsourced additions like this while patrolling might potentially defeat the purpose of BLPREMOVE.

13509:: I believe you that it wasn't your intention to say anything hurtful here. And I do appreciate the vote of confidence (although these days I don't particularly care who thinks I'd be a good admin, one luxury of not being an admin). But I do think it's important to understand why 5200:

I just spent a few hours looking through the articles you list on your userpage, and was very impressed, by how interesting the articles are and by how well researched and written they are. Thanks for your valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, and happy end-of-year-month!

14983:

Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done on Knowledge about news sources incorrectly reporting the details. The close is clear about the issues involved and the rejection of the court order as a controlling factor. Personally I don't see a need to bold those words. --

3195:, 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. 7412:. If you didn't want to see the rfa fail you could have done nothing rather than opposing the way that you did. But the chance that the rfa would go the way it was completely foreseeable and so feeling conflicted or sorry might be sincere but is a bit much coming from you. 6655:

for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can

6277:

12909:

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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

11552: 6936:: Sure! FWIW, speaking to your arb-self and not your party-self, it's not at all clear to me as a random party what the difference is between rebuttals on evidence and analysis in workshop, and that might be something to clarify someday. But whatever works for others. ☺ 5888:

just trying not to be the one. And yeah, I had to cut and paste. Translate somehow doesn't get to the archived text. Normal cut and paste doesn't work either; you have to use the widget at the bottom of the screen. In any case, thank you for taking care of that for me.

5615:

Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Knowledge. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.

3792:

One option would be to start a section on my usertalkpage, for example, and link there just to make things prettier. Seems a little silly in terms of rule following, but I want to make the situation as easy as possible for people who want/need to follow it to follow it.

8245:

I'm sad to see you leave the admin corps, but I hope that it allows you to become a more productive Wikipedian and a happier person. I've mostly quit anti-vandalism work for content creation and I feel like I've actually made a difference. Hope to see you around soon!

2802:|update_frequency =  665:

As I said to JJ above, I just hope that I don't run into another case like this for a while—both because I (perhaps naïvely) hope to never see anything so egregious, but also for the sake of my sanity, and the sake of whichever CU is crazy enough to take on that case.

4082:

Hi Tamzin. The following articles in ARABPIA were recently created by a non-EC user. Could you please delete them? (I put up a deletion template, but this shouldn't need to wait 7 days ... if you are not the correct address, can please you tell me where to turn?).

1588: 12234:

But to be serious, I appreciate that you undertook to close, and closed so thoughtfully, such a large and complex discussion even as it was getting international attention and pushback. Someone had to do it; the discussion was open for so long as to suggest no-one

2066: 5364:). As I mentioned with another editor, both STS and SNSP follow a similar naming convention. Am I seeing patterns where there are none? I feel awful for putting this on KC, as I really don't think this is their fault, particularly with the fairly definitive CU. ~ 14960:

make a good point that we shouldn't have this close appear to be coming from a Western perspective, and input from Indian Wikipedians more knowledgeable with their country's media and cultural norms would be far superior to my own thoughts on that whole matter.

5438: 2709: 13158:

Back in 2023, you made a comparison that has not sat well with me. The more I consider it, the more outrageous and detrimental to the Knowledge project I find it. As part of an arbitration decision regarding the extremely controversial new religious movement

7346:

follow-up comment yesterday. If this goes to a 'crat chat, 'crats can and will weigh votes based on statements that qualify the support/opposition, and I would expect a 'crat to do so for mine—especially given my obvious bias regarding the incident at issue.

11549: 9408: 9265: 5102:, but there's no guarantee, and I don't believe it covers ancillary costs, not to mention the effects of the stress.) So it's no small matter. But if he can retract that threat, I'm very much open to an unblock. (No promises, but definitely not a hard no.) 10840:

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

13948:

came up in a discussion and I know you've done some good work on LGBT-related topics. I figured I'd ask if you have any ideas or are interested on working on this? No issues if not, I realize that most Wikipedians already have crazy to do lists as it is.

8920:

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

9377: 14434:

more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

9252: 6022:& a custom edit summary) and quickly revert obvious vandalism (when using the default edit summary). (I took a wikibreak for some time during the three months, which resulted in me not using the tool in November and only using it once in October.) 9404: 13301:: we have instance after instance or organized attempts at manipulating coverage here, and when you might have to chose to help those of us who go to bat against this kind of manipulation, it appears you instead decided to give them a little gift. 8219:

Sorry I'm only seeing this now, Tamzin. Echoing others above, it's sad to lose you (for now) from the admin corps, but I'm glad you're still around in a capacity that works for you, and looking forward to working with you on content going forward!

4645:, the sections Early 2000s (2000-2002) are changed to Early 2000s (2000-2003) and Mid 2000s (2003-2006) to Mid 2000s (2004-2006). It just does not seem right to me and other editors here. Is there a way to change or to convince the change? Thanks. 13578:

Hey, you're a good friend, you know that? That was powerful and nice for you to reach out to me afterwards. Sorry you've had to put up with some embarrassing and annoying stuff from me lately, but that was really kind. You deserve this barnstar.

3957:(#4). What I support and others oppose is the presence of the word "likely" there, and in this matter I am on the side of consensus. (It's true I once considered lab origin very likely; however my current assessment is only that it is plausible.) 1616:

article and my mistakes regarding the page move. You were incredibly kind, especially when the entire situation was my fault, and I wanted to thank you again for that. I am truly happy to see such great and kind communication on here. Thank you.

7456:

Clearly I don't understand what your conflicting feelings are (ES of diff 1). And from my POV, Grandpallama's oppose is being no more of a dick than your oppose - which to me are both with in the realm of what people get to oppose about at RfA.

15281:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

11551: 11246: 12612:, where just by walking in a "straight" line along the shore the moon appears to move across the sky. That was really nice. Been spending most of my creative efforts on a novel-length translation effort into toki pona. We'll see how it goes. 5763:: 'zinbot shouldn't be marking any redirects (in the technical sense) as reviewed. Its scope is RfD'd redirects—which for technical reasons are considered articles, not redirects. Danny's bot, on the other hand, only patrols true redirects. 9819: 9810: 9783: 9390: 9383: 9269: 9258: 1181: 3777:? I thought that I should try to illustrate the problem for the admins that I see, but I'm not sure if this PvP is helpful as an illustrative matter or not. Without the section, I'm well-below 500 words. With the section, I am well over. 2424: 12638:

that. You're human, and you deserved better after spending ten years of your life here. I got trapped in a situation of my own making. I still want to say so many things about it…but I don't know when. Maybe after I get home eventually.

7820:! Tangentially, might also want to clarify the different standards of review for CTOP / case-level AE, as came up briefly in the discussion. Since it's just a matter of reflecting existing policy, I imagine it shouldn't need a new ARCA. 1727:

Well, that's the better-case scenario. The worse-case scenario is "Umm, that's not all how this thing is done, and there's no easy way to reverse the damage you did. Have a fun 6 hours unbreaking it manually unless you want a trip to

944: 13288:

editors there a shield to to deflect questions regarding their activity surrounding on article. And, yes, good thing you're not an admin then because I certainly don't appreciate the would-be threat, which is itself outrageous and

1170: 8233:

Thank you for your service, Tamzin. I have only good words to say about your tenure as an admin and have always found you to be a very helpful person. I'm glad to hear you aren't fully retiring, and will certainly see you around!

5222: 3089:

to set their genders, instead of setting them locally? As an irrelevant aside, as I was writing this note, I realized I would ping both accounts. This made me curious: how many pings are they currently sitting at? Anyways, happy

6148:

I understand. It's just a procedural action to restore the previous partial block after the temporary siteblock lapsed; it doesn't imply any issue beyond the original one. If you would like to appeal the original partial block,

15202:: It begins "First, we must consider the arguments raised regarding tenure, neutrality, cross-wiki experience, and representativeness of the global community as a whole", and ends "There being no consensus, but a null outcome 14594: 6415: 1104: 833:. I wasn't aware of the incident that led to the creation of your essay prior to today, and had only created mine in response to seeing "he/she" a lot around here. I must say you articulate it a lot better than I do, though! 13153: 12427:

I'm glad it was you two helping The Wordsmith performing the close. I can't say I agree 100% with your close, which (by my reckoning) puts your pitch right in the sweet spot. Thanks for taking that responsibility with leek.

14691:

I didn't comment in the RFC, but had been keeping an eye on it. That was one of the most clearly written and well rationed closes I've seen in awhile, so I thought I'd give you a whale to help with your cetacean needs. --

4713:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some Potato pancakes, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Hanukkah!

9836: 551:

I kind of hope I never get this particular barnstar again, though, at least not for the same kind of thing. Mass gaslighting is a demoralizing thing to work against. I'm happy to go back to just dealing with vandals and

11963:

Very thoughtful analysis in both. If you're healthier and happier not being an admin, I'm glad for you that you made that choice. I 100% agree that the effects of social capital on the culture here are often dismaying.

14817: 13368:

You seem to be arguing against something I didn't say. If you want me to affirm that religious editors can't manipulate or POV-push any more than irreligious ones can, well then, of course, but I never said otherwise.

1832:

glad that this experience ended up in a positive place in the end and hopefully, this will not sound super sappy, but it was wonderful to meet and interact with you and CT55555. I hope you are having a wonderful 2023 (

6971:

sincere apologies on behalf of that person. I see your notice on your talk page about stress, and I know it was a while ago, but I can't imagine that that rude message helped any further. I hope you feel better soon!

2799: 6737:), the Knowledge page was created for him to help users find his information on the internet. The page was for his students and other people to know him better and find information about him. As the page is deleted ( 2785:

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

2681: 1440: 11913:: I tried at least! I used the online correction request form, about 30 minutes after I published the page on-wiki. But I didn't receive any confirmation of receipt. Maybe T&F doesn't do that? Guess we'll see. 7135:. Your punishment for asking this forbidden question will be getting this whole schpiel in return. Eye (heh) of the beholder as to whether that makes me an agent of the evil eye.So, when I started to understand my 5039:

Hi Tamzin, I have been meaning to contact you for months but in amongst my activities here and in life in general, I keep forgetting to get around to this. Now I understand that some action had to be taken against

10658: 5869: 12097:

useful framework to use. It diverges with the fact that we're not really a bureaucracy or a democracy, but the roles and norms are the same. But lawyers and judges and justices following norms is something great.

7729:. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on 7069: 3642:

It was so great to meet you at Wikiconference North America – thank you for allowing me to infiltrate the Cool Kid Inner Circle! Hope to see you again at future conferences/gatherings and around on the wikis :)

895:

Happy purim, Tamzin! I thought I'd try and throw together a mishloach manot basket to give out :) feel free to pass it around or make your own basket, if that's your thing—if not, cheers and chag Purim sameach!

3365:

Hi! I hope it's not too forward of me to drop by to say that I smile every time I see your signature. Nothing really of substance to add, it's just improved my day enough times that I wanted to tell you so. —

8136:

recent events solidified my feeling that this was not a space I wanted to be a part of. (More Toki Pona philosophizing: 'want' and 'need' aren't separate things; instead there's only superseding degrees of

6845:

Because of this, I thought that it was best to revert the unsourced change, due to not being familiar enough with the topic area to feel comfortable making any substantive alterations to the article myself.

9753: 4180:

to draft space instead of delete, as I would take responsibility for both of those if necessary, just want to more fully review both sets of citations, but I do know both are definitely notable topics.

6033:. I have not received any concerns directly relating to my use of Rollback - the closest was a message I received on my talk page regarding my reverting of sockpuppet edits (that thread can be viewed 4394: 3045: 15218:

to a few thousand pages and I had to clean it up. In the highly likely event that this close is overturned but no new consensus is found, my fallback pick is whoever closes the overturn discussion."

5223: 9185: 9122: 7908:

I echo what the others have said: you've been a net positive to the project, in all respects. Thank you for your service as an admin, and cheers to many more years of building the encyclopedia. :)

4485: 3191:

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:

14656:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge 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

14219:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge 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

13814:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge 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

13130:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge 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

10718:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge 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

4057:

is an overstatement. In any case, it's good to know you presumably weren't referencing me. I would contend that, as evident here, such general criticisms may be liable to misinterpretation. Best,

1824:

healthy dose of perspective and humility, and I have learned from this experience. I has been a while since I did anything with page moves and the like that I genuinely forgot how to do any of it.

5963: 14313:

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

9043: 4173: 4096: 1681:

civil to each other and to me over a relatively minor, totally good-faith misunderstanding, to the extent you're following up on it weeks later. I love it. If there were an inverse version of

11718: 5906: 5454: 5230: 10127:

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

7004:), but I'll leave it up a little bit longer. If anything I am the opposite of stressed right now—serene and methodical—but strangely that can have similar effects, to the outward observer. 3333:

I took my own wikibreak a few years ago, and it was for a few years. It coincided with sudden busy-ness in real life, and I think I would not have handled things well had I continued, 🇺🇦

11550: 7801:

Hi Tamzin, Given there were no objections, I've implemented your suggested change to the template, and hatted the ARCA request. Let me know if I managed to botch the template somehow. :-)

4740:

Hello hope all is well. I am writing because I wished to know, since it has been more than 3 months, if my 0rr for the Israel-Palestine conflict be removed? Thank you and have a good day.

8363:

Thank you very much for your contributions! Completely understand your reasons for taking a break ( :( ). Hope that you might return to admin work, if you'd like, sometime in the future.

8203:

I'd missed this. There has been a lot of loss in the community this year. Heal gently. Glad to see you're still planning to stay around and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

2812:|source_user = Tamzin 'zin is short for Tamzin |user_days_back = 2 |user_edits_back = None |namespace = -Category, File  5699:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. 5242:

to draftspace applies if someone wants to work on it. That way the problem doesn't just get pushed six months down the road unless there's someone explicitly putting their name to it. --

8062:

Thank you for your service, Tamzin... just noticed your resignation on BN. You have been an excellent admin and editor throughout your wikicareer and I'm sure others will say the same.

7512:: Again, where do you get the idea that I think the current state of the RfA was unforeseeable, or that I reject any responsibility for it? Obviously, my oppose was the first link in a 4290:, which I feel like is one of those links I'm gonna turn blue in either a week or a year. Coming off a series of articles that weren't exactly light stuff, including rewriting parts of 469: 114:

I don't like the idea of getting pings over someone putting a box on my page that says I did nothing wrong while vaguely insinuating that I did, so I'm just parking these here instead.

8900:), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five 13513:

was taken aback at this, and frankly why I was taken aback. One of the main points I tried to make as an admin, which I still see as worth taking the time to fight over even now (see

10020:

for when to split a page. It seems unlikely to me that there's a benefit in splitting off just anal fingering, unless you plan to be able to write a much longer article on the topic.

2363:, 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. 11260: 10270:. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from 3885:

I do not think that this comment will help admins reach a decision in the thread, especially after so much has already been written, so I am declining this request for an extension.

3109:

A possible solution to one of your cons is that Microsoft has an installable utility for Windows that supports this kind of stuff, rather than fumbling with ALT + 1,243,827,319. See

2020:. This means a huge amount coming from you. After a year and a half as an admin there's only a few admins left who feel to me more legend than colleague, but getting a barnstar from 802:

can't plead ignorance the next time. I'm glad that this appears to have been the former. "Lord's work" is a compliment I'll happily (flatteredly) accept, be it meant proverbially or

12135: 8645: 6817:); given that one could (for example) undo the edit using the same custom summary and not have it fall under rollback. Secondly, I wanted to check how this condition interacts with 2724: 1329:(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. 6734: 6034: 13259:. But please do think on what I've said. Your fellow editors are your equals, regardless of religion, regardless of what the institutions affiliated with their religion might do. 11375: 8678: 2319:

Please note that such behaviour is distinctly unacceptable on Knowledge. However, I realise you are still new to Knowledge and learning the rules - please feel free to ask at the

15046:

Oh, but the point that brought me here in the first place: I too wish to thank Tamzin for taking on the highly visible close and making a good account of themselves at the task.

12777:

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

9918: 7987:

Seconding everything said above. You've consistently been one of the few admins willing to speak out and take action when you see problems rather than ignore or perpetuate them.

13124: 13102: 5238:

actually do anything. It'll just rot in draftspace for six months and then get unceremoniously G13'd. I'd much rather have seen it deleted outright, perhaps with a comment that

4267:, I was just feeling like it had turned kind of meta and thought we didn't need to include every possible example that could be scraped up. I think you're right about this one. 2809:{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist |source_page = User:Tamzin/spihelper log User:Tamzin/XfD log User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable  13405:

you in the greatest respect. Raising a question over the block and asking for a review was a perfectly reasonable thing to do and I welcome the oversight and have zero issues.

8711: 2793:{{User:'zinbot/Secondary watchlist |source_page =  10612: 9842: 9707: 7085: 6803:

reverting a net-positive but flawed edit (such as an unsourced addition of encyclopedic information that could be sourced with a simple Google search) counts as a "bad revert"

6598: 6372: 2397: 1100: 699: 9938: 8391:

I'm surprised to see that you resigned. While we have not seen eye-to-eye on many issues, you were a good administrator and were able to isolate your opinions of what policy

7184: 1010: 14609: 14378: 14213: 14191: 8811: 7593: 3477:

Aah, Robert Frost! I read and very much liked his poems back in my youth, but I can scarcely remember anything about them now. The sadness of the passing of time... Sigh...

2134: 10615:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

9845:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

9710:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

7088:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

7079: 6601:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

6375:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

210:

governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues

15330:

For that brilliant Kolkata RfC close. I was just happy to see your name and edit summary on my watchlist, and I knew it will be an amazing well detailed close. Arigato :)

11702: 11570: 10741: 6725:

Dear Tamzin Recently a page was created for professor Masoud Shafiee whom is a famous teacher at AmirKabir university in Iran. You can find his page on university website

6720: 2677: 14621: 11463: 11268: 1258: 1214: 14853: 12447: 12347:

I stated in the discussion below the vote that I felt quite bad for whichever poor admin got tasked with closing the ADL RfC - props for being one of the ones to do so!

9439: 9306: 607:; had it been a less thorough report, it may have been overlooked or neglected, especially after the negative CU results. We're lucky to have had you looking into this. 2332: 14650: 14628: 14399: 14030: 14018: 13856:

in a nutshell. There is also literally no reason for us--for me--to not be nice to fellow editors. It's easy to bring out our 'mean' sides when a screen separates us.

12663: 11489: 11236: 10934: 10488: 9913: 9863: 9360: 8517: 8495: 5266: 3564: 3212: 1001: 15206:, I find that the least bad solution is to go with the person who satisfies all four of those criteria while having done the least to upset anyone. My first thought, 13231: 848:

I'd just like to thank you as well for your well written essay. I hope this essay helps inform future editors and, in doing so, reduce the instances of misgendering.

7279:

Knowledge's community. But I thought to myself, what could go wrong? Worst case scenario, I will maybe be ignored or warned. Surely, I wouldn't be blocked... right?

7111: 7026: 6746: 6582: 6356: 4287: 997: 14410:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen

6922:

Hi 'zin. Can you please move your analysis of my evidence to the "Analysis of Evidence" section on the workshop page. We have an unlimited number of words there --

1818: 14328: 12795: 10884: 10191: 9468: 8765: 7571: 2995:

and likely others. Should be fairly simple to modify the templates, but you seem far more suited for template editing than me! Let me know what you think. Cheers,

2798:|namespace =  1859: 1709: 1626: 13845:

Your userpage has frankly given me a lot of pause recently. Especially your "On the backrooms" off-the-cuff essay (I read the captions instead though!) and this:

11938:: Apparently it did make it through! ... To the help desk for all of T&F, who have now forwarded it to the journal's production team. Will keep y'all posted. 9152:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 8420:

for your work as an admin, Tamzin. It might not have felt like it but it was greatly appreciated by myself and others. I hope to still see you around the 'pedia.

5928: 5251: 1482: 13808: 13786: 13173:

This looks a lot like you were comparing antisemitism to anyone daring to mention what appear to be continued and organized attempts at manipulating Knowledge's

10905: 10208: 9216: 9157: 9056: 11522: 14794:? It's just that the media has been synthesizing together "Supreme Court demands Knowledge to remove name" and "Knowledge removes name" together in headlines. 13131: 10824: 10712: 10690: 7116:

and maybe there's some reason you want all 142 of these conversations here, but if there isn't, maybe do some archiving? They have bots for that, you know. :D

3313: 2118:(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!) 1528: 11459: 5980:

Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way.

1000:, for your bot and SPI work, for "find me removing things more often than adding them", for paying tribute on your user page in channeled anger, - you are an 14220: 12853: 12828: 12047: 10859: 10145: 9247: 9180: 8874: 8832: 8593: 7796: 7685: 7664: 7187:. Also thank you for reminding me I need to pay an invoice. (Got to pay for the new solar panels! Very exciting. We'll see if they pay for themselves before 6889: 6877: 6063: 6051: 4992: 8924:. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Knowledge:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on 6876:

If you have any feedback and/or criticism about the reverts I've made, or any questions about anything I've said, then please let me know. All the best, ‍—‍

6690:: Thanks for a really helpful review. I'll sleep on some of those style questions. Also, this notification made me realize that the recent change I made to 2671: 721:

Without getting into the messy question of whether or not the other editor's professed ignorance is plausible, I think it's clear your calm, non-judgmental

14855:. They are both broadsheets or newspapers of record, so anything printed in them (including synthesized headlines) would be trusted by the general reader. 14361: 13100: 12227: 11444: 9097: 8849: 7639: 6757: 6742: 5461: 2606: 14657: 11259:

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the

8528: 7283:

years to gather enough experience and Wikipedian culture will be completely different by then. Although I would be an elderly man by then - 35 years old!

13847:

if you find yourself spending more time talking about the people who write wikipedia than being one of those people, remember that you can fix that today

9625: 9212: 9153: 8638: 4091: 2685: 1865: 14286:

and its talk page for discussion of what might need to be done to keep it at FA. Or in the latter case if you're not in D.C. but just like a challenge.

2520:, 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? 1515: 503: 14189: 14095:

If you are engaged in shitposting with another editor, please discuss the off-topic shit with the editor at their talk page, not the article talk page.

13815: 11304: 8897: 8786: 7614: 6128: 5513: 5233:

isn't sitting right with me. Not enough to exclaim "you've got it wrong!" but enough where I'd like to get it off my chest. Specifically, it's because

15211: 10719: 7725:

concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on

7001: 6660:

within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.

6282:

within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.

12874: 12668:

I accidentally found a very short comment in a talk page comment, only about eight comments in the five years since the article (a BLP) was created.

11352: 10955: 10596: 10233: 10166: 7702: 6366: 4849: 4769:

I would be prepared to lift at the 3-month mark as long as there has been no disruption in the preceding 3 months and you have been reasonably active

12677:

Now for an entirely other subject. When I scan the behind-the-scene spaces here, you write most of my favorite content. Thank you for being here. —

6798: 4912:

Hi Keyhound, sorry for the slow follow-up on the last thread, haven't had much time for Knowledge. But I'd like to see this batch through at least.

2227:

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

1269: 14099: 12992:

Hello Tamzin, I hope you are doing great. I noticed that 'zinbot has not reviewed any RfDed redirects since 17 April 2024. Maybe it needs a fix? –

10803: 10254: 8063: 7041: 6750: 6243: 2889: 2302: 1929: 1176: 581: 540:

behavioral similarities mounted. I've really never seen something that elaborate fly under the radar, except reading early (pre-2010) ArbCom cases.

12747:

egregious. Just as soon as I can fix my archives access to get a digital image plus the article and caption. I will email to you. Thanks again. —

6217:. For what it's worth, as I've said, I think all you need to do to get unblocked here is explain how you'll avoid making these incorrect reports. 14626: 14518: 14263: 14248: 10542: 8493: 7717: 6868:, I accidentally hit the 'standard revert' button instead of the 'unsourced BLP revert' button, but I attempted to make up for that by leaving a 6592: 6548: 6322: 4984: 4898: 4365: 3992: 14755:! I may have plenty of cetaceans, but you can never have too many... is something I imagine a B-movie mad scientist character saying. (See also 11283: 8736: 14422:

credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to

12897:

credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to

10982:

credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to

9971: 9198: 9191: 9135: 9128: 9060: 9049: 7062: 7053: 5915: 5908: 5099: 2024:

is one of those things that just... oh I don't know how to finish this sentence without sounding too fangirlish but... well, again, thank you.

570: 12693: 8033:

Although perhaps a novice editor, I agree that a lot of editors lose sight of what the point actually is. Thanks for your admin work, Tamzin.

14016: 13191:

coverage. In turn, anyone foolish enough to edit in those quarters will in fact be interfacing with Falun Gong-aligned editors, many of them

11300: 10606: 9012: 8901: 7406: 7404: 7106: 5807:

picked you because we've at least spoken before. I do know better but in that moment however for some reason did not. You may trout at will.

3192: 8117:. Honestly it's not about my own wellbeing. It's about... I don't know, the only phrase I can think of to describe it is the Toki Pona term 7403:

I had stopped reading TNW's RfA after deciding I wasn't going to participate but checked in just now. And I have to say I find these diffs (

4313:

if you haven't seen it. (Obligatory and very meta disclaimer that I do not agree with every single thing Natalie Wynn has ever had to say.)

2536: 13784: 13242: 11337:

Would it be appropriate to include a description that a company was criticized for being transphobic, if two sources I have (articles from

10780: 10562: 9597: 9473: 9416: 9224: 8637: 8262:

Also, how did my name end up in the Wikihate section? How did Nosebagbear/you get a hold of my name and put it there? I'm really confused.

7125: 6657: 6279: 3388: 3186: 2915:

allows one to put the more common name after a pipe (parameter 1) in cases where it is different from the title of the redirect target, or

2206:'This is very good' is probably more idiomatic, since the colloquial English use of "love" to mean "like a lot" doesn't really translate.) 1352: 830: 604: 11535: 9798: 9663: 9643: 9337:. I know you're on a bit of a break at the moment, but just want to let you know your contributions and kind words are still appreciated! 8349:

chime in and thank you for your admin work and continuing content work, and also for trying to steer things in a more friendly direction.

6573:

led to papal and royal condemnations, a firebombing, the writer's ban from the UK, and thousands of letters per week demanding the ban of

6347:

led to papal and royal condemnations, a firebombing, the writer's ban from the UK, and thousands of letters per week demanding the ban of

6142: 4464: 2301:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

1677:

because like... holy fucking shit this site is toxic sometimes. And it's been so incredibly refreshing to see two experienced users be so

824: 15007: 14715: 13435: 10688: 5303: 5120:

see how he comes back in the new year. Anyway, I hope you have a nice time during this Christmas season and best wishes for 2024. Cheers

4077: 15381: 15372: 12281: 2703: 743: 13434:) didn't come off as... I don't know, histrionic. I really try to avoid playing the social capital games of adminspace these days (cf. 13219: 13214:

And I have to ask: Are you aware that the Falun Gong is a new religious movement entirely based around the words and whims of one man,

13075:

Thanks for the update. If you ever need an extra pair of hands to help maintain this tool in the future, I'd be happy to help out :) –

12500: 10772: 10501: 9558: 7895: 7791: 6508:

I think this article is a perfect example of how, despite those who claim otherwise, all the interesting articles most definitely have

6302: 4555: 4407: 3004: 1946:

Thank you for your Guide, I found it very interesting, very thoughtful and reasoned, and I appreciate the time that you put into it. --

13148: 12471:

Ha hahahahaha. Hahah! Hah! Hah! Huhhah! Hooooooohaaaaaah! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Hhahahahahahahaha. Haha. Haha. ha. ha. ah. Ahem.

12308:

Hey Tamzin! I did not see until today this was your project. I read Capri-Sun on the front page and very much enjoyed it. Nice stuff!

8912:, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his 7556:

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

3902:

Okay. Would it be procedurally inappropriate to leave it on his talk page then? I really just want to invite him to the conversation.

14729: 14507: 14038: 9701: 9691: 7270: 5740:

Hello and thanks for all the good work. I see 'zinbot has marked a redirect I changed as reviewed. Just checking you're aware that

2563: 865: 854: 13430:

I hope you know I'm entirely genuine about you being a good admin, and I hope that the strength of my wording in the AN/I post (CC @

10343: 9634:

I just wanted to thank you for taking the additional steps required to create a viable and just consensus on a complicated topic :)

8944: 7901: 7810: 2800:|always_watch =  15106:

Well done. And my compliments are not given too often, so take it for what it's worth, but you did a truly good job on this close.

12982: 12671:

Can I just delete the comment from the archive? It is slur that is awful in two ways. I will clean the stable so no one else must.

12046:

One of the things that I liked about your on the backrooms statement is it gave an excellent description to something that came up

11715:"Knowledge's Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia" 11484: 10946: 10369: 10157: 9499: 7693: 6621: 5319: 2761: 216:

genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed

15180:

Thanks for your work on that close, quite impressive. I'm looking forward to reading your close on this (so far hypothetical) rfc:

11067: 8523:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

6680: 4573:: Are you able to take a look at these? Behaviorally it's spot-on and I'd probably block on that alone, but may be worth a check. 2861: 2248: 1903: 1153: 1135: 1084: 839: 15388:, - I think of you often that way, with thanks for having pointed out that not all singers' biographies are of equal quality. -- 14064: 11202:

Me, if they do it wrong. Got a 100% discount for agreeing to that. But I trust Fat Sal and his whole team at the auto body shop.

9620: 8959: 8673: 8599: 7328:. I don't mind the comment at all. I've been thinking a lot about whether I stand by my oppose. To me the four main factors are: 6857: 5933: 4498: 3981: 3286: 2899: 2810:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion # namespace=4 prefix=Redirects_for_discussion/

1987:. But don't think that all the other things you do have gone unnoticed! You are an awesome Wikipedian! Thanks for everything. — 174: 10522:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

9827:

Template:Did you know nominations/When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word

9533:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

9286:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

9077:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

7516:, and while there have been intervening events since, ultimately we probably wouldn't be here if not for my decision to oppose. 2875: 2744: 2647: 1924: 1242:

Okay, I think that's the last of them reined in, aside from a few buffalo who had already been taken in by loving adopters like

14411: 14237: 12886: 12216: 11455: 11329: 11299:

for 22 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at

10971: 10768: 9553: 7318: 6521: 3415:: Sadly I forgot to ask the 'crats to use the userbox. But, for whatever reason I'm back in the saddle now, so maybe next time. 3208: 3136: 2801:|never_watch =  2175: 916: 908: 766: 180: 15112: 13832: 7188: 4125: 2600: 14049: 13880: 12704:: Aww shucks. Thanks! As to your question, glancing at your contribs, I can guess the comment you mean. I'd say just throw a 10776: 10736: 9593: 9412: 9220: 8336: 6464:! It was exciting to find such a long-lasting, far-reaching story that had almost no coverage on this wiki. I'd love to spin 4349: 2840: 2576:

I will stress is a published author and editor and taught me everything I know about writing, concedes defeat on the matter,

2295: 14674: 14141: 13293:

these huge differences between the two. And that's well-recorded by scholars in the area, whether you acknowledge it or not.

8545: 5821: 5819: 4440: 3227: 2665: 2156: 1583: 1523: 688: 14503: 14166: 13177:

page, a reality that we in fact we have discussion of in peer-reviewed academic literature (especially Lewis, James. 2018.

12978: 12188: 11063: 10339: 8940: 7954:<3 You were a good admin, Tamzin. Good on you for continuing on the content side, and all the best, both here and IRL - 7877: 7787: 3916:

There's no rule against talking through other channels, although that's not to say I recommend it, just that it's allowed.

3560: 3266:

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?

2929: 2919: 1300: 15248: 15188: 15041: 14807: 12199: 11900: 11851: 11404: 11360: 8772:, 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews 8289: 8273: 7183:. I just enjoyed the chance to give a brief update on where I'm at, since I don't think I've said much on-wiki about that 4233: 4210:

as it has no substantial contributions from ECR editors. The others have been converted to redirects, so I'll leave them.

1575: 633: 14119: 14115: 7551: 7472:

alien to me, and sounds uncharacteristic coming from you, as I tend to think of you as being fairly staunch on civility.

6983: 5948: 4654: 4400: 4219: 4000: 2584:

brought me into the world, you've still earned a place in the WikiHate section, congratulations or not. (Also thank you.

13666: 11834:

I'm making a recording for you. I've never been a good speaker and it probably won't be as good as yours, but I'll try.

7367:

Thank you for your response! I do find your perspective interesting and I really appreciate the fact that you shared it!

6056: 3098: 1996: 15013: 14974: 14781: 13611:

I don't "put up" with anything. I haven't done anything I didn't want to do since July 2013. You're nice to chat with.

12166: 12072: 11513: 11495: 10758: 9575: 9394: 9202: 9139: 8702: 8684: 8649: 8559: 8214: 8026: 7969:

Thank you for all of your work as an admin, and I hope to see you continuing to build an encyclopedia in the future. —

6865: 6841: 6638: 6307: 6260: 5137: 4373: 4165: 3095: 3072: 2051: 1956: 1664:

careful." One thing I've never done in 10 years here, for instance, is get an FA. Hell, didn't have a GA till 5 months

13019:

was looking into this, as they run that side of the bot. Hey Sammy! Fox sighting recently here! First in over a year.

12714:

in place of the sentence in question. If the term were directed explicitly at her ("X is...", not "X looks like..."),

11378:. It's been up for just over a week with only one reviewer so far. My appreciation in advance if you're able to help! 9116: 8340: 8257: 8004: 7926: 6440: 5170: 4531: 2925:

allows one to indicate the form with other capitalization after two pipes because that template is coded differently.

2813:|always_watch = User:Tamzin |never_watch = Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |update_frequency = auto }} 14745: 14494: 14308: 12969: 12052:

It is unfortunate that CTOP often serves to set a minefield for newer editors who don't know how to play the WP:GAME.

11387: 11054: 10754: 10747: 10505: 10494: 10330: 10006: 8931: 7778: 6455: 2797: 2691:

Many brave Tamzins died in the Great Tammy Wars. Some find strength in looking back, but I find it easier to forget.

2416: 2233: 2218: 1389: 966: 763: 15252: 15234: 14438:. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October. 14364:) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews; 12485:

That would put you all in violat.... hahhhahahahahahahahaha! Hoooooohaaaaaaah! Ohhhhhhhh hahhhhhhhh! I'm sorry...

11929: 11904: 11438: 11311:, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist 10476: 10464: 8433: 8308: 8198: 6726: 6390: 5335: 4069: 4048: 3033: 14474: 14460: 14435: 12949: 12935: 12910: 11034: 11020: 10995: 10827: 10675: 10310: 10296: 10122: 10050: 10036: 9905: 9770: 8921: 8741: 8240: 7758: 7744: 6963:

Hi, I was just looking through the contribution history of this particular IP when I noticed that someone had sent

6432: 6274: 5997: 4684: 4491: 4296: 2909: 2392: 1468:

civil if I ever find my own person under attack. I hope it blows over quickly now, so you can get back to editing.

1429: 722: 15181: 13931: 12536: 11803: 11787: 11762: 11109: 6714: 5918:. Always appreciate when someone goes the extra mile. That was a great summary with good guidance for the future! 4224:

Ok, thank you. Is there something that we can to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future? Thanks.

3495: 3140: 15408: 15003: 14711: 14499: 13654: 13596: 13526:

of the U.S. has opinions on LGBTQ rights). Whichever way the thread goes, I think that's a good question for you—

13461: 13203:

editors there noted, this arbitration request was a naked attempt to silence me from editing and adding yet more

12974: 12772: 12655: 12632: 12068: 11829: 11365: 11077:

Hello, please self-revert your latest edit to the MfD or I will be bringing this matter to the ANI for violating

11059: 10913: 10335: 10216: 8936: 8550: 8487: 8108: 7978: 7783: 6760:: The English Knowledge has no jurisdiction over the Persian/Farsi Knowledge. It looks like you've already found 6503: 6488: 5830: 5006: 4215: 4177: 4161: 4106: 4026: 15244: 15210:, is actually only attached on a few wikis, and for whatever reason is sockblocked on Commons. Instead I select 15207: 15199: 15184: 14033:, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months 13774: 13500: 11935: 11910: 11896: 11725: 11400: 9333:

For your diligent edits throughout the encyclopedia, as well as getting to the bottom of a possible misquote at

8093: 8079: 7982: 6911: 6616: 6233: 6194: 6179: 6165: 6082: 4305:

week or a year. Anyways, I do agree with the overall removals. It's a really tough topic to write about without

2794:|source_user =  1341: 223:(defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) 15170: 15142: 14721: 14111: 13889: 12832: 12317: 11087: 10974:. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 10835: 10224: 9997:

as anal fingering comes with its own techniques and risks. Do I have to be patient when it comes to consensus?

8853: 8632: 8396:

using the tools, I won't say you're making a mistake, but if you start another RfA, you can expect my support.

8041: 7873: 7643: 7578:

and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

7260: 7226:?) You were a great person to chat with when I was regularly in the Discord VC, and I miss those days. Come by 7136: 7020: 6780: 6533: 6517: 5849: 5361: 5357: 5208: 4636: 4247: 432: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 15068: 14978: 13070: 13049: 11149:

Well that was fun. Nice alliteration. Do you want to go to that MfD and strike out all their comments? Enjoy,

10683: 10633: 10458: 10348: 8372: 7390: 7362: 6997:

Meh. I like whales and I like doing silly things. So I took no offense. But thank you for your thoughtfulness.

6882: 6122: 6066:: Sorry for the delay here. I agree that there were no issues in your temp grant. I have granted permanently. 5339: 4343: 3375: 2313:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in 14488: 13473:

have opposed based on your political stance. But now, I would not oppose a Tamzin RFA. Have a great weekend!

13088: 13035: 12963: 12091: 11048: 10959: 10324: 10170: 9955: 8386: 8358: 7949: 7772: 7334:

I don't like seeing good people put in emotionally difficult situations, and like being part of it even less.

6793: 6468:

out at some point, since it's really its own topic, but I'm guessing most coverage would be in Danish. Maybe

6014: 5853: 5573: 5059: 4966: 4623: 4434: 4191: 3568: 3350: 3345: 3181: 2372: 2354: 15339: 15192: 15158: 14008: 13991: 13760: 13744: 13719: 13704: 13546: 13514: 12763: 12734: 11992: 10599:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 10372:. I noticed this when a redirect I created that was sent to RfD was patrolled by a human new page reviewer. 9829:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 9694:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 9346: 8414: 8177: 8158: 7963: 7072:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 6952: 6585:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 6359:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 5129: 5114: 3971: 3880: 3685: 3275: 3121: 2091:

have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your

1741:

that "How many GAs did the most-supported RfA candidate ever have?" is a decent stumper in Knowledge trivia.

14954: 14912: 14893: 14868: 14835: 14600: 13385: 13363: 13332: 13310: 13275: 12889:. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 12041: 11895:

If i understood it right, you sent that to the journal. I'd be interested to hear of any response you get.

11890: 11678: 10381: 8955: 8729: 8621: 8228: 7537: 7503: 7488: 7466: 7451: 6270: 5684: 5089: 4807: 4793: 4730: 4451: 4420: 4151: 4064: 4021: 3252: 3163: 3117: 3104: 2629: 2291: 2271: 2088: 1953: 1890:

Your vote at Leeky's RfA was one of the most reflective contributions I've read in a long time. Thank you!

1026: 753: 491:

Absolutely deserved for uncovering the Swaminarayan-sockfarm. A lot of work is waiting, but you did great!

463: 129: 15087: 14414:. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 14302: 13961: 13166:), you state, regarding me, "All I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to 12494: 12437: 11973: 10329: