User talk:Tamzin/Archive/11

Draft proposal to change the venue for new community-authorized general sanctions

Hi Tamzin, your current AN thread spurred me to spitball this: User_talk:L235#Proposal_to_change_the_venue_for_new_community-authorized_general_sanctions. I'd welcome your thoughts there. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for banned user

Sorry to bother you, but since you're the blocking admin I figured you were the correct person to ask. The recently blocked user Trexerman briefly came back, only to accuse me of being a "Russian sympathiser" on his TP for having reported him to ANI. It's nothing egregious, to be fair, but given that I already have one crazy person to worry about on Wikipedia, I can definitely do without that. Could his TPA be revoked? Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Blackout tattoos ref

On my talk page, you said: You've made this edit twice now to Blackout tattoo. No one's trying to use Healthline as a source there. Rather, "WP:healthlinedotcom" (not sure why the adding user didn't link it) indicates that there was originally a citation to Healthline that has since been removed. Why are you removing this detail from the template? It's potentially useful information to someone trying to find a new citation—at a minimum, it steers them away from making the same mistake as whoever originally cited Healthline.

Healthline has been blacklisted as a source on Wikipedia after a community decision to remove all traces of the website from Wikipedia - I am part of the team doing that.

Putting a neutral [cn] requests editors to find a reasonable WP:RS source, for which there seem to be several. I made this edit to reuse the HuffPost ref and add another from Penn Medicine. Hope this is satisfactory to you. Good luck. Zefr (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thank you for adding the source to the article, but that doesn't really answer my question, and since you've done the same on other articles, I'll press the matter. Why remove the mention of Healthline from a citation needed template? Maintenance templates' content is explicitly not part of the encyclopedia. It's fine for them to acknowledge the existence of deprecated sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion will give you background. As Healthline had been used as a source over years mainly for medical topics - and Healthline is a spam source that damages Wikipedia - the RSN discussion led to a decision to remove all traces of it on the project. There is always a better source available than Healthline. Zefr (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: You're still not understanding. Healthline is not being used as a source on these articles. Please stop and look at the content you are removing. This was not using Healthline as a source. This was not using Healthline as a source. These were not using Healthline as a source. In each case, a {{citation needed}} was already there, and its |reason= parameter was being used to explain that a previous Healthline citation had already been removed. I have no problem with you removing citations to this deprecated source! However, for these particular edits and some others like them, all you are doing is making existing {{citation needed}}s less clear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the healthlinedotcom part of the cn was created purposefully with a bot to remove the original Healthline spam ref. There is no value to what was the existing Healthline source, as it leads the user into Healthline's spam. This has been discussed with admins, so we are proceeding with removal. Leaving a [cn] in place is like any neutral request for a (better or any) good RS source. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: I see that David Gerard wrote If the bot can leave a comment tagging that it was Healthline (if that's possible), that would be very helpful afterwards and there was then a consensus to implement that via the |reason= parameter. Can you point me to the consensus to remove that information? If such a consensus does exist, you need to be linking it in your edit summaries, not the very unclear rv cn for blacklisted spam Healthline, which makes it sound like you're either removing spam, or removing a CN tag, neither of which is the case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And for the love of G-d, could you please not make the kind of edits I'm challenging [regarding the 1st and 3rd changes in that diff] while we're discussing this? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Read further in the discussion where David Gerard said: "that would be ideal, "reason=WP:healthlinedotcom" is a searchable flag that the claim itself really needs human inspection." The searchable flag was needed because typing healthlinedotcom in the conventional way with a "." would cause a blacklist error. This is what prevents novice users from inserting Healthline articles as sources now. The "searchable" part was intended for editors to locate its uses and eliminate them. I have explained enough here, so am done now. Zefr (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: You have explained nothing. And you are not above justifying your edits to a colleague. If you continue to remove useful information from CN templates without any consensus, this will go to AN/I. Please self-revert the edits or partial edits you have made that remove |reason= parameters without changing anything else, or present an expicit consensus for these changes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

CCSes & deletion

Moving the conversation from this talk page here given I've now deleted that one. I'm sold on the A7 - feel free to add me as a party to whatever dramah this causes. (cc Bbb23, Drmies) firefly ( t · c ) 18:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've always figured there's an implied "accurate information" criterion for that clause of WP:CSD, so this makes sense to me. A page might still be G12'd if a first G12 is declined by someone who fails to locate the cited source, or G3'd as a hoax if an editor incorrectly thinks that an existing source verifies its claims, when it's actually about a different entity. If one wants a more wikilawyerly way to view it, one could say that the requirement of "remove[d] ... in good faith" is transferrable—if someone assumes good faith of what is in fact bad-faith content, the bad faith transfers up to them, albeit inadvertently (i.e., a good-faith proxying of a bad-faith action). Or, of course, WP:IAR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I was kind of looking forward to seeing Bbb block themselves. Yes, Tamzin, I agree with you. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There was another-another revision

Same image vandalism, accidental rollback by a different user: <diff:2>. – 2804:F14:80E4:5A01:580E:D3C2:955B:7871 (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Gone. Easy on the trigger finger there, Zsohl. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks <3. – 2804:F14:80E4:5A01:580E:D3C2:955B:7871 (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Could you delete these image vandal revision and edit summary 1 2 and 3 from our talk page.

Also there are many image vandal revision in contributions of Dfkjw, 82.117.89.31 and 109.205.62.98, especially 3 revision on President of Singapore. Zsohl^(Talk) 12:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think I got 'em all. firefly ( t · c ) 12:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Firefly Please also remove a edit summary of rev. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that edit summary meets the RD criteria, but won't object if anyone else wants to make it go away. firefly ( t · c ) 13:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It is on my talk page history, so requested to remove. Never mind

But what about these revisions 4, 5 and 6. Zsohl^(Talk) 13:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, missed those - gone. firefly ( t · c ) 13:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

AN topic

Hi. I didn't know if you aware or whether it was particularly relevant (which is why I would rather mention it here than at the noticeboard), but the admins in question had their RfAs within about two weeks of each other in 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kathryn NicDhàna and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pigman). Seems like it was coordinated to some degree, so it could imply that the meatpuppet behaviour was planned from an early stage. Or it could be nothing. Willbb234 23:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234: I've tried to avoid discussing anything involving their previous usernames. To some degree it might be inevitable, and doing so does not violate WP:OUTING since the connection is not revdelled/OS'd, but I'm still trying to be respectful of privacy considerations. In this case, I'm not sure that's worth bringing up, since there's an easy AGF association. Friends/acquaintances/etc. do often run at or around the same time (Firefly was my RfA buddy, although we wound up going a few months apart because I was slow to check my last box), and since the two acknowledge they know each other off-wiki, that seems like a pretty innocent explanation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand your caution, but even a little digging suggests that the former username of one of the two at least is quite possibly of significance when looking at what may be evidence of long-term issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We used to do it that way in 2007. And what Tamzin said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

WOW!

First ArbCom case request in which I read the opening statement all the way through without wanting a red pen. No opinion on the case itself, but that was clearly and consicely clear and concise. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

RD3 request

This might need a RevDel: [1] Invalid^OS_talk 17:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I imagine zzuuzz has been called worse than that, but if they'd like it gone, I'm happy to; or if a talkpage watcher feels inclined to RD, no objection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ya think? Yeah, stuff like this doesn't bother me. If it gets too gruesome or explicit then I don't mind if someone thinks it sets a bad environment, but even that stuff doesn't bother me directly. Like a duck's back off water. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Or even water off a duck's back. Archive your talkpage? 92.19.246.23 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Who are you calling a duck? Be water, my stalker. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, will keep that in mind. Invalid^OS_talk 15:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Rollback Rights Request

Hi there! I though I'd ask for rollback rights here because I saw you on the list of admins willing to grant such requests. I have been reverting vandalism for a little while now. I think I have the responsibility and knowledge of policy to use this tool well. I would also like to use huggle .I commit to being accountable for all reversions that I make and am willing to have this tool revoked at any time if I misuse it. Any feedback of my contributions is most certainly welcome! Thanks! Seawolf35 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC) You can disregard above. Thanks! (edited 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Word limit exceeded

Hello, Tamzin. You are currently exceeding the prescribed word limit at WP:A/R/C. Please do not add or subtract any more words from your statement without formal permission from the Arbitration Committee or clerks ahead of time. You can request a word limit extension by emailing the clerk team.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks for letting me know. All I'd request is the right to note it if Corbie makes another comment like the ones I've recently highlighted. Otherwise I think I've said what I have to say, for this phase of the case at least. If you want, I'm fine with collapsing my replies to Cryptic, Thryduulf, and Risker, which clarify some small points but don't add to the evidence presented against Mark and Corbie. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] It hasn't been asked that you collapse any of your replies, so there isn't a need to do so at this time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Need help

Tamzin, is it possible that you can check to see if the newly added sources and info on the articles Cunnilingus, Fellatio, Anilingus, Handjob, Fingering (sexual act), and Non-penetrative sex are good enough? I would really appreciate some feedback. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Autisticeditor 20.​ Overall, this is pretty good work! If I could give a general note, it's that you should make sure you're using the highest-quality sources available. For human sexuality articles, these will be more scholarly works, less sex guides (although some sources admittedly blur the line between the two). Note that for some human sexuality claims (namely, ones relating to biology), WP:MEDRS applies. I have not checked all of these citations for MEDRS compliance, but have checked whether they verify the claims you're making. And so a few issues on that note:

• Cunnilingus (diff)
  • You changed The clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of the human female genitalia to ... of the vulva. But the two cited sources [2] [3] refer to its role in the whole human body, so if anything that summary should be broadened, not narrowed. See also Clitoris § cite note-Rodgers O'Connell Greenberg Weiten Carroll-2
  • The McCammon cite is fine, but it's put in the middle of a sentence attributed to Shere Hite.
  • The essential aspect of cunnilingus is oral stimulation of the vulva by licking, movement with the lips or some combination is not an encyclopedic tone, nor an encyclopedic approach. We document what people do, and if we say that particular techniques are more pleasurable, we say that based on reliable-source analysis, which a sex guide is not.
  • (Sidenote, not text you added, but: the female may separate the labia for her partner implies that the giving partner won't be female)
• Fellatio (diff): I don't think Bullough quite verifies It is difficult for some people to perform fellatio due to their sensitivities to the natural gag reflex. Reword to say what Bullough says: the penis hitting the back of the throat and ejaculation are both able to trigger the gag reflex.
• Fingering (sexual act) (diff): Does Carroll say the rest of the genitals (as was written before), or just the rest of the vulva (as you changed it to)? My instinct would say the former is true, at least depending on how "stimulating" is defined.
• Non-penetrative sex (diff): I don't see how Rosewarne verifies the comparison of manual masturbation with manual sex. One could argue that that's trivially true, but if you're going to cite something at all for that claim, it should be a source that makes the claim explicitly.

Again, overall pretty good work. Just bear in mind what I've said above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

Hi Tamzin!

I’m leaving this message as I’d like to request/apply for the Rollback permission. What’s prompted this request is where I’ve recently been doing a lot of WP:BANREVERTing - Twinkle makes things a lot easier by being able to restore a previous revision (one prior to sockedits), but it can still take a fair amount of time, especially if there are a lot of contribs to go through. If I understand Rollback correctly, it should speed up the process of banreverting in instances where no one has edited the page since the sock. (I’m also aware that there are scripts like User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback, which from my understanding would make it possible to mass-revert a sock’s contribs from their contribs page — but I would want to be extremely cautious when using tools such as that, given the obviously much higher potential for something to go wrong.)

I’m happy to commit to being fully accountable in my use of the tool, as described in point 2 of User:Tamzin/Discretionary admin things#Permissions requests - you can take this message as such a commitment. As for point 1, I’d like to think I’ve generally employed good judgement when editing Wikipedia (though I guess I’m about to find out if that’s not the case ^/lh).

Let me know if I’ve missed out anything you’d like to know, or if you have any questions for me.

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 04:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@A smart kitten: I've granted the permission for 3 months. Please make sure to use it wisely, and to respond promptly and courteously to any concerns (valid or otherwise) about how you've used it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll make sure that I do. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Music (2021 film)

Please review the newest edits here and let me know if you think this editor has resumed making personal attacks against me. I do not think that their latest posts are consistent with your advice to them in connection with your recent block. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

What "personal attacks" have I made? I was serious and mean in the way I presented arguments, but they are arguments. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Come on, you wanted a discussion on the article talk page, you got your way, I made the points I needed to make like you wanted me to. I do not know if you know this, but you are absolutely enraging me with the statements you are making Ssilvers. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please leave admins out of this. I am doing nothing wrong. If you want a discussion, respond to my claims directly on the article talk page. There is no reason for you to do what you are doing here. Please!!! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Tazmin, I striked everything I said. I have no clue what Ssilvers is upset by, but I striked it since I do not want their feelings hurt. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: I am not currently an admin. @Drmies, could you take a look? Or any talk page watcher. Given the intensity with which HxA approaches this topic, I tend to think an indef pblock of HxA would be in all parties' best interest, but haven't thought about this too hard, since, again, not an admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

An indef? I'm sorry, what?! Because of my... "intensity"? What does that mean? I am freaking out here! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what an indefinite block is? That means forever. You are saying that I should be blocked from editing any topic, even non-Music ones, just because of comments on one talk page? Do you see the video game articles I have worked on the past month? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I just striked a comment, and you are still telling me I deserve a indef? This is not logical. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Everything was striked, I do not hold what I said there anymore, and I am going to let Ssilvers. There, now there is nothing for you to worry about. Happy? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I said a pblock, as in a partial block from the article and its talkpage. This is the normal solution for when an editor is generally productive but for one reason or another has a weak spot on a particular article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Breathes in, beathes out* Alright. I misred that for a second. Thanks for clarifying.

User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry

Greetings, Tamzin. I'm wondering if this comment is fitting. Are there any concerns related to original research? Your input is appreciated. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: You have not linked to any comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this comment Infinity Knight (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: WP:NOR does not apply to talkpages. It only applies to what content we put in articles. If Nishidani were saying the content should be included simply because his friend's friend's daughter was allegedly raped, that would be an NOR violation. If he is offering that in support of including RS-published claims to that effect, it is not, particularly given that all he is saying is that it's "not improbable" and not arguing for a statement in the encyclopedia's voice. (That doesn't necessarily mean it's a strong argument—I take no position—but it's not an NOR issue.) All the best to both of you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood. You do bear a striking resemblance to my daughter, and I hope you don't take offense to my observation. It's truly admirable to share your photo openly on the Internet, but I usually advise my own children to prioritize their online privacy. Navigating the nuances of original research can indeed be a challenge, and at times, it can be somewhat disheartening. Wishing you a wonderful day ahead. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad for coming back to you, but are there still no worries about original research (OR)? Infinity Knight (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

OR still doesn't apply to talk pages, and they're explaining why it's important that high quality sources are used. These things will only come out after the war, so it is useless speculating on them unless we get strong independent reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Chicken Tikka Masala

Hello Tamzin. you very kindly semi-protected the article Chicken Tikka Masala a year ago (Oct 11, 2022), which worked wonders in reducing the frequency of people messing with the national origin of the dish without providing evidence. The protection expired not a week ago and the first pesky IP user has driven by, causing work for those who care that statements should be backed by evidence. Would you be able and willing to semi-protect for a further year, or should a certain threshold of disruption be demonstrable? Kind regards and best wishes Guffydrawers (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've re-protected for a year, given that the disruption started pretty much immediately the protection expired. I don't think we need to waste any volunteer time on this. firefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

IP block evader

Earlier this year you blocked 174.55.91.169 as a block evader. 204.111.198.147 appears to be the same person making some of the same edits with the same edit summaries.

174.55.91.169: [4]

204.111.198.147: [5]

Their other edits cover the same areas. I don't know who the originally blocked person was but you might better be able to tell if it is the same person. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: So I definitely see where you're coming from, and you're probably right, but after a few minutes I'm not seeing a smoking gun. Could you post diffs please? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The two diffs above I posted are the same edits with the same edit summaries from each IP. One two ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so they are. Sorry for overlooking that. Well, happy to block, then, but first will give a ping to Yamla since the original block was a CUblock, and I cannot peer into the black box of whatever sockmaster this connects to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

By policy, I'm not permitted to share which account was involved earlier in the year. What I can say is that the checkuser data is stale so I can't say for sure this is the same person. I can be sure the IP addresses geolocate to the same area of the same country (not conclusive, but definitely suspicious) and the behaviour is basically identical. Therefore, not on checkuser grounds, I'd say this appears to be the same person evading their block. Let me know if you think there's more you need from me! :) --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla: Nah, just wanted to make sure there was no extenuating circumstance inside that black box, like the original having since expired, or there being some reason to be unusually harsh or unusually lenient in block settings. Blocked 6mo soft, feel free to harden if you think merited. Thanks for the response. @ThaddeusSholto: Feel free to roll back whatever edits of theirs you want to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I rolled back the Southern Democrats as it was obviously disruptive but the other edits are outside my wheelhouse so I couldn't say if they are productive or not. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

2A01:73C0:501:C153:0:0:6B8:DC1

2A01:73C0:501:C153:0:0:6B8:DC1 (talk · contribs)'s edits on User talk:Lilijuros seemed weird, is this a logout sock? -Lemonaka‎ 14:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really a sock if they didn't mean to. You're welcome to ask them if they wish to correct the error. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gotta. Here's the art of speaking I need to learn. -Lemonaka‎ 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide

Is there a way we can declare the article a contentious topic? Trade (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No,* but I can sure block anyone who pulls shit.

*Okay in theory you could request it at WP:AN but it would be very unlikely to pass.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing principles

Just noticed the new one. It's an interesting one, and a matter I've thought about how to phrase. I suspect myself a lot of neurotypes odd in the general population are the default baseline on Wikipedia, but there's only so many ways you can say it without sounding like you're insulting someone (and I freely admit I can be less careful and more flippant with my word choice than you often are, certainly when I'm in the ANI peanut gallery). I've noticed there's an unfortunate correlation between editors who freely disclose neurodivergence and editors with significant competence issues, and I've wondered what consequences it has for the project as a whole in terms of interacting with people who are more clearly not working on neurotypical principles than our already high average -- though, of course, many disclosed neurodivergent editors are substantial and obvious assets. Vaticidalprophet 04:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, something I'd been thinking about for a while, and felt spurred to put into words after seeing an exchange on your talk page actually. As to correlations, there's a bias there, right? In terms of who wants/needs to disclose. If an editor quietly chugs along writing articles, doing gnomish work, etc., without ever getting into any conflict, then why would they want to disclose something that could subject them to ridicule or at least passive discrimination? (And there's editors who rack up 100k+ edits while barely touching anything metapedian.) Whereas some editors realistically have no choice: If they don't disclose, they may be treated as intentionally disruptive; whereas, if they do, they might at least "downgrade" that perception to CIR. Just like a person who is mild-to-moderately hard of hearing may be able to not disclose this fact in a workplace if they don't want, whereas a deaf person really has no choice in most contexts.

I'm active in a number of spaces online that are majority-neurodivergent. (I'll claim the label "neurodivergent" without comment on the label "autistic".) They all have to deal with the issue that, in such spaces, people are more likely to be sensitive, and also more likely to offend by accident. In the context of a collaborative project one can broaden this to a greater likelihood of people stepping on one another's toes. What strikes me is that these spaces' main advantage in contrast to Wikipedia is that they're honest with themselves about what's going on. Conduct decisions are made with the presumption that the participants' motives may not have been what you'd infer of a neurotypical person. Hence my new personal rule.

That said, it's not like there's easy answers here. Several years ago an openly autistic admin was desysopped for discussing violence against another editor in a way that was intended, by all accounts, to come off as mean but not as a true threat. It was an unambiguously desysoppable offense (although I'll admit I didn't take that view at the time). And yet, I think a lot of neurodivergent people can relate to making a joke that made perfect sense in their own head but came off very differently to their audience. (To be clear, I don't think that they raised autism as a defense, and I don't want to imply that their misconduct was "because autism", but at least the general circumstance is one that neurodivergent people tend to find ourselves in.) What's the solution there? I don't know. There's an overlap between statements that are reasonably insta-indeffable or desysoppable, and ones that a neurodivergent person can make without intending it to read that way. And if that's where we're starting from, how do we handle all the more minor cases?

So that's why I added this personal rule. Feel free to make any wording changes that preserve the meaning, if you think they'll make it less prone to misinterpretation, since it's just such a difficult thing to discuss, walking a tightrope between what could be perceived as being anti-accountability and what could be perceived as ableism. But regarding what you said about ANI: I think the best thing we can do about these topics is discuss them when there's no immediate reason to discuss them. If everyone's thinking about a specific editor when they discuss the topic, that will color their opinions.

P.S., not to come across as talking down to someone only a few years my junior, but a lesson I learned in my first wiki-life, reflected in the second paragraph in my userpage: The best thing you can do for your wiki-mental-health is avoid any page where the word "indef" gets thrown around. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

To open in response to your last comment: well, a lot of people are scared of ANI, but I'm scared of political articles, and I'm sure I've seen you edit those. 😛 We all see different hotspots.

I'm definitely familiar with what you say about knowing it, or how different it is to be in an environment where people openly discuss that moderation and norms are shaped by neurodivergence, as opposed to the weirdly "everyone knows but no one knows" Wikipedia environment. I'm unsure if it's possible at all on Wikipedia to change the latter to the former, simply because we (in the societal sense) currently conceptualise neurodivergence as a product of diagnosis. Even for things like autism (and I concur, with hangups and caveats that are all frankly well outside the scope of what I aspire to discuss onwiki, with the "will claim neurodivergent, will pass without comment on autistic" identification here) where there's a relatively robust self-advocacy community, it's still in some ways reasonably and in some ways not treated as offensive to tag someone as autistic who hasn't been tagged as such in a medical context, and plenty of things I'd very much like to have robust self-advocacy communities outside of medicalization do not. There's an age factor here, in that a lot of the core editor (and especially content-writer) base is from age cohorts where a lot of what's diagnosed now wasn't, for better or worse.

As for Ironholds, well. I'm familiar from the "read about it after the fact" perspective with that case, for whatever that counts as familiarity. I don't think the behaviour I read was at all appropriate, and I think it's reasonable to expect an admin of any neurotype to know that. Simultaneously, the thing that really interests me about that case (using 'case' here in the broader sense rather than the ArbCom term of art) is the "seven RfAs" bit, and seven RfAs is characteristically autistic to me, for both good and ill. It shines through as both the way one can ascend past a lot of the mental limitations allistic people self-ascribe, and work tirelessly towards the pursuit of a goal, and simultaneously the way one can just not know when to quit.

To circle back around to ANI, I've been thinking about it because it actually did come up there lately, and in part due to a thread I'd created; the subject of that thread was...outed? as autistic by linking to a diff he'd written at a much smaller venue by a well-meaning party partway through, and he clearly wasn't happy at all about it. At the same time, in a different thread, another disclosed autistic editor suggested the reason a third party might have been acting in the problematic way that got him brought there was that he could be autistic, and the readers of that thread interpreted it as a personal attack on the subject. The discussion is worthwhile reading (and my comments in it reference a third, related case where an editor was clearly in severe distress over being a thread subject in a way that nearly went very poorly indeed, and where some of the reopening comments trying to address it were imo atrociously worded). Vaticidalprophet 05:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's actually those ANI threads—including a remark you made about how many/most editors at least have subclinical "symptoms" of autism (scare quotes mine)—that first got me thinking about this topic. Just because I never comment there doesn't mean I don't stay up to date on the latest drama. I agree that there's a cultural/generational issue here, and such things will always be a challenge for an international, intergenerational project. A norm like tone-tagging (beyond the common "/s") could do a world of good, but I think it'll be at least a decade till you could get a majority of editors on board with something like that. (Not like, making it mandatory by any means; just instilling it as a norm.)

The other day, in the course of saying something about Wikipedia, I explained to my partner what deletionism and inclusionism are, and she'd said something like, "I hate to tell you, but I think I'm an inclusionist." Today, shortly after sending my last message here, something suddenly hit me, and I said to her, "Wait, what makes you think I'm a deletionist?" To which she said, "Because you need everything to be just a certain way." I'm guessing you know the kind of "certain way" she meant.

And it occurred to me that you can pretty easily predict how drama-heavy a particular area of the wiki is going to be by just how strongly people need it to be a certain way. There's a reason I refuse to touch any edit that has anything to do with categories. There's a reason that the major topic area with the worst-written articles is, by far, math. And you can call the tendencies that beget this "neurodivergent", or just... "particular"... And those particularities carry over to administration too. Ironically, I would argue that the very resistance to change things in a more overtly neurodivergent-embracing direction is itself of tendencies that, in many cases, fall into what I'll again call "either neurodivergent or just very particular." ANI being a mess of massive walls of text is the way that Makes Sense, so that must never change, no matter how flawed it is. For Wikipedia to stop being hostile to newcomers, we'd have to restructure some things that are The Way They Should Be, so I guess it'll keep being hostile. And so on and so forth.

As to Ironholds, to be clear, I didn't mean to make it seem like a "wink wink nudge nudge" thing which case I was referring to; rather, I was trying to use it as a general example since, as I said, once you get into any one specific case that complicates the analysis. (Mx. Ironholds is, incidentally, a researcher and commentator on autism issues these days, though they're no longer active here. And yes, that's an off-wiki identity still linked on their userpage, before anyone says anything.)

Back to your point about the ANI threads: It'd be nice to have an essay as a companion to WP:CIR (maybe WP:Idiosyncratic editors) that discussed how best to handle competency issues in ENDOJVP editors but stopped short of saying "All of these editors are probably autistic." I know you followed the somewhat tragic tale of the now-3X'd SoyokoAnis (talk · contribs). I'm certainly not going to try to diagnose her with anything, but in the threads about her there was clearly a lot of dog-whistling and subtext, as there is basically anytime CIR comes up with an adult native English speaker, because, yeah, CIR is usually about language/culture, age, or neurodivergence. Perhaps it would be nice in such contexts to have a diplomatically-worded essay to point to that nutshells to: "Some editors interact with the world in very different ways than others. Maybe this is for neurological reasons, or maybe it's just how they are." and then... And then what? Then a conclusion drawn from that, but I'm not yet sure what that conclusion should be. (And not that in her particular case there would have been a different outcome necessarily; just that it allows for more honest discussion.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, Soyoko. I admit to less sympathy to her than you or Elli (who was my main point of contact with her saga), but that's not to say a lack of it. She didn't scan to me as adult (and, as someone who first edited as a young child, I suspect some of our current policies about not disclosing the ages of young editors might actually be counterproductive -- but that's another issue...), with the consequence I was mostly viewing her CIR issues through the lens of youth rather than neurodivergence, but I can't exactly say the latter was never a consideration. It did stand out to me that the RfA candidate she insisted on nominating was a disclosed autistic editor.

I know of two essays currently about specific neurodivergences. I can't pretend to like either of them. I'd happily MfD WP:AUTIST, where its every word strikes me as Making Things Worse, if I thought that proposal had a chance in hell (I've already spent my nominating-bad-essays-and-failing points for the month). There might be something useful in its bones, though; it apparently hit someone's sense of "this is me" enough for WP:OCD to be based on it. Vaticidalprophet 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion (hope I'm not barging in too much).

Wikipedia is... an interesting environment, I guess, for neurodivergent people. Given, well, the way the site works, I think it's likely to attract them (what normal person spends their free time writing an encyclopedia for free?) Most people find the whole concept entirely foreign.

As for Soyoko, yeah, I think it's likely a combination of some type of neurodivergence and youth - neither of which are incompatible with Wikipedia, but if someone with them makes wrong assumptions about how the site works... it's not gonna be fun. Hell, looking at my first edits, I'm surprised I didn't get many warnings, given how terrible they were.

I dunno. This is kinda a ramble because I'm not sure exactly what I should say here? I guess, "be kind" has mostly worked for me - and is what, I think, worked for getting me on the right track. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I do think that Wikipedia's generally moving in the right direction on all of this. As I said to SoyokoAnis, I really doubt she would have been extended as much AGF back when I made this account (2012), which is one thing that made her situation extra frustrating. Then again, one still sees cases where if CIR issues aren't resolved after the first or second attempt at intervention, someone just hits the block button. I recently saw one of my least favorite things, a "Sock of someone or other" block. They're used as an excuse to say "We can label this intentional disruption rather than CIR because they're probably socking." Somewhere between begging the question and a thought-terminating cliché. But still, overall, progress, yeah. (Also thanks for dropping in to this chat. )

@Vaticidalprophet (but also still @Elli): I don't know if I'd agree with deleting WP:AUTIST, but I do think it misses the point. Partly because it's hard to describe the "honeypot" effect without resorting to stereotype. Partly because it's hard to describe autism itself without resorting to stereotype. But the essay manages to cut too much slack to neurodivergent editors while still not giving neurotypical editors particularly good advice about how to deal with us; and the advice it does give isn't very helpful when most neurodivergent editors are not open about it (if they even know themselves), and applying the label speculatively is, as you've said, a thorny issue.

So, seriously, if you (either of you) would be interested in working on an essay with me, I think there's room for improvement in the neurodivergence essay category. I'm interested in the idea of something that isn't explicitly about autism, but rather, without outright saying so, says "We're all at least kinda autistic here". I'm thinking of a title like WP:Needing things to be a certain way. In my mind, the essay would start out with something like, If you edit Wikipedia, that means you see a need for things to be a certain way. Quite likely, your first edit was noticing that something was incomplete or incorrect and fixing it. But why does it matter that the world know that the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states in the Second Circuit but nowhere else? Why does it matter whether "Ljubljana" is spelled correctly in an article about baseball? Because things need to be right. All of us, to some extent, see things this way. And then go on to discuss how this applies to things like WP:CIR, WP:CIV, WP:TE, WP:POINT, and WP:RGW. And then give actual useful tips that can be applied to all editors, not just ones with autism userboxen. Stuff like:

• Accept that Wikipedians are more likely than most people to have strong opinions on "little things" like punctuation or reference style. To you, they might be small, but if those things are important to the way things need to be for someone, they can become very personal.
• Someone's view of how a conversation should work may not be the same as your view, or indeed, as the view of society at large. In particular, certain editors may value straightforwardness as a virtue significantly more than others, often based on a feeling that conversations are simply meant to work that way. This should not excuse incivility, but understanding this may help to reach constructive solutions in conflicts.
• It can be very hard for Wikipedians to let go of something they are passionate about, even when consensus is against them. If this leads to someone becoming disruptive on a topic, then even as you nudge their focus elsewhere you should be respectful of their passion. And whoever comes up with a way to gently keep editors from returning to these passion topics will have averted the indefblocks of countless mostly-constructive contributors.

Wouldn't be the whole list, just the first three things that come to mind. In neurodivergent terms these are "sameness"/general particularities, communication issues, and special interests, but framed generally it's just a lot of the stuff we see all the time on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really related, so taking it to your talk page

Arrgh... it's been a while since I thought about gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources (ref) in relation to contemporary Japanese popular media personalities. English-language "reliable sources" focusing on Japanese popular culture tend to be sub-par (one of the sources initially cited in relation to Utada's gender identity proactively used singular they without any request from Utada to do as much, and also seemed to be conflating non-binary gender identity with same-sex sexual orientation...), and Japanese-language sources are extremely unlikely to make as big a deal out of it as English ones because of how the Japanese language works.

Japanese doesn't use pronouns anywhere nearly as much English, because content that is implied from context (as the referents of pronouns almost always are) is usually omitted: the Japanese for "I ate it" isn't "Watashi-wa sore-o tabeta" (literally "I it ate") but rather "Tabeta yo" ("Ate sentence-terminal-particle") and "I met her" isn't "Watashi-wa kanojo-ni atta" but rather "Atta yo"; "I ate it" or "She ate it" in Japanese would only specify the subject if it were in response to the question "Who ate it?", and even then "she" would necessitate a separate indication of who the girl/woman in question is, such as pointing, which is rude. (Needless to say, the Japanese version of Utada's website doesn't use any pronouns where the English version uses "she" and "her".) I actually recently found out that both the "Japanese words for he and she" that I learned in my beginner Japanese class were recent coinages based on English/French, the "word for he" being a redefined word classical Japanese pronoun that originally referred a person or thing that is far away from both the speaker and the listener, and the "word for she" being the same word, in the classical Japanese equivalent of the genitive case, with the noun "woman" attached after it. This kind of development would not be possible, needless to say, if personal pronouns were as entrenched in the actual Japanese language that people spoke every day as they are in English or French. I suspect this is why "pronouns" aren't really a thing on Japanese Twitter (etc.) like they are in America and Europe: it's my impression that a not-insignificant percentage of American pop-stars have their pronouns listed in their Twitter profile, and this percentage probably skyrockets when one only counts those pop-stars who have stated a gender identity other than cisgender male or female, but with Japanese pop-stars (even those who also hold American citizenship and live in Europe, and "occasionally tweet in English"), the former percentage is probably close to zero and the latter may be higher, but as far as I'm aware Utada is the most prominent case at the moment, and...

So yeah, it looks like the Utada case is going to be solved by a consensus of editors based on the fact that sources affiliated with the subject use a particular pronoun pattern, but if more Japanese (etc.) pop stars, voice actors/actresses, live action actors/actresses, video game producers, etc. with anglophone fan-bases and extensive coverage in English-language blogs and "reliable sources" that are little more reliable than blogs, start coming out as non-binary, gender-fluid, etc., a discussion might need to be had about how the MOS passage you quoted applies to such cases. A huge hullabaloo was made about a decade back about whether personal websites (or websites maintained by publicists) should take precedence over academic publications with regard to MOS:JAPAN#Modern names (with reference to whether long vowels should be marked), which I think kinda missed the point there (if we take URLs or copyright information on Japanese-language websites into account, we get people named "Sakaguchi Jun'ichirō" being identified as "Sakaguti Junitiro" just because the webmaster created the URL based primarily on how Japanese text is input on a keyboard).

But I suspect that, when it comes to gender identity, personal/official websites should definitely take precedence over third-party sources that often pass for "reliable" in pop culture articles, no matter how many such sources there are or how recent they are compared to what we assume to be the latest update on the personal/official website.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I should thank you for your positive input on the Utada page! :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I think we often run into a problem of overly generalizing Anglosphere gender norms to other cultures. What you're saying about Japanese language and culture is very interesting; I don't speak any Japanese, but I speak French, and even in that language relatively close to English, many English-centric assumptions prove false. The whole relationship between social gender and grammatical gender is different when applying any noun to yourself contains an implicit statement of your gender. (It's also, incidentally, the most frustrating part of transitioning when you don't speak the language often enough to form new habits. I've gotten weird looks once or twice for calling myself américain rather than américaine.) One can see a bit of that disconnect going on at Talk:Claude Cahun, where people are struggling with how to apply the subject's gender expression in French in the 1950s to an English-language article in 2021.

I'm not sure there's an easy solution to it, though, because this problem runs deeper than just Wikipedia. For instance, without taking a side on the issue of the term Latinx, I'll observe that a lot of the debate in the U.S. about it seems to come from people who are not familiar without how gender works in Spanish. A lot of English-speakers tend to expect our concept of "my pronouns are ______" to extend to languages where gender is more complex than just third-person pronouns and the occasional "son"/"daughter" situation. And that includes RS—many of which, as you allude to, barely even understand the concept of non-binary gender to begin with. So we get screwed over by the RS, and then by people who read them and then make good-faith changes based on their bad takes. The complicated pronoun situation I've been most involved in has been that of James Barry (surgeon). There's no language angle there, but nonetheless his article's been done a great disservice by the surfeit of articles in somewhat reliable sources saying "You'll never believe what this empowering lesbian, forced to crossdress, accomplished" or "You'll never believe what this pioneering trans man accomplished".

Which gets us to the awkward sourcing question: Generally, someone's gender identity is the sort of thing we'd want very high-quality sources for. At the same time, we don't want to misgender someone just because major RS have been slow to pick up on something. Ellar Coltrane started taking they/them pronouns long after leaving the spotlight, and for over a month our article on them sourced their pronouns to their Instagram bio, till they got a brief write-up in a newspaper we could use instead. Given how many long-dormant BLP stubs we have (another rant for another time), there are plausible scenarios where a self-published source or suboptimal-quality source could be our only reference on someone's pronouns for decades. Not to mention people who are only mentioned in passing in articles. I've been in the news a few times in my life, mostly when I was very young. In the past I've been mentioned in mainspace, although I currently am not; but if someone were to re-add a mention of me, to get my name and pronouns right they'd have to cite like... a blog post I wrote when I came out, I guess? That's not exactly ideal, and would be weird to see alongside a cite to a major RS, but it's preferable to just getting people's pronouns wrong.

At some point we're probably due for an RfC on when, if at all, it's acceptable to use they/them pronouns in cases of ambiguous gender. I don't really want to be the one to start that, though. :D Anyways, this is turning into a ramble, but thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts. (I designate this a talkpage-watcher-friendly thread, by the way; interested to know what others think.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Arrgh. Your James Barry example made me think of George Eliot and even more contemporary women writers who used male or "ambiguous" pseudonyms (or variations on their real names), such as D. C. Fontana. By the standards of some modern popular media, we should be calling them all transgender men or at least gender-fluid, except that we're lucky enough to have good documentation of the actual reasons for their hiding the fact that they were women. Ironically, the same is essentially true of a certain living author (who I won't name, but I think you can probably guess who she is), whose views on non-cisgender rights have turned out to be somewhat questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: This is as much me thinking aloud as anything else, but I'm going to ping you so I don't feel like I'm talking to myself. :) (Not to say a response is unwelcome, by any means, just that this may not really be written like a response to your own points, and you could be forgiven for not having much to say in response.) Oh I'll also ping BDD—with the same caveat—since he expressed some interest in this topic at Talk:Claude Cahun.

The way I see it, we have four categories of cases where pronouns aren't as simple as "just say what they want":

1. Unknown identity, where the person's story does not involve participating in any gender-segregated activities. It was surprisingly hard to find a good example of this (since for most historical figures we can infer gender based on segregation), but after looking around in Category:Unidentified people I did find Italian Unabomber as an example—someone we have no interviews with, no profile of, etc.
2. Known identity but unknown gender identity. For many articles we don't explicitly know someone's gender identity, but there's a general precedent that we take fem-presenting AFAB as presumptive evidence for she/her and masc-presenting AMAB as presumptive evidence for he/him. This is imperfect, but it's probably the least bad approach. Issues arise in three cases:
   1. Subject has indicated no gender presentation at all. E.g., picking another at random from that category, Neuroskeptic.
   2. Subject has presented in a way too inconsistent to draw any non-SYNTH inference from. E.g. my favorite example, Thomas(ine) Hall... I swear not just my favorite because Thomasine and Tamzin are variants of the same name.
   3. Subject's gender presentation differs from that associated with their gender assigned at birth, but they have made no statement regarding gender identity. There's tons of living people like this, but BLP forbids us from documenting it in most cases. It thus comes up more often with long-dead figures like James Barry.
3. Known identity, but ambiguous or inconsistent gender identity. Ruby Rose, Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, and Alexis Arquette all come to mind, as does Utada Hikaru—in each case a different kind of ambiguity or inconsistency. (Often, as in the cases of Rose and Arquette, this may be someone who is genderfluid, and it may well be that they see no ambiguity or inconsistency but the sources reporting on them did.)
4. Known identity and gender identity, but it is unclear what pronouns should follow from that. Especially common in non-binary Westerners from before Stonewall who went on the record about their gender, like Claude Cahun or the Public Universal Friend.

In #1, #2.1, and #2.2, I think it's really author's preference (à l'EngVar) whether to do they/them or avoid pronouns. I think readers understand the concept of the gender-ambiguous they, given that it predates the singular-personal-pronoun they by several centuries. The important thing is not defaulting to he/him or she/her based on stereotypes. On #2.3, I've made clear my view at the Barry RfC that MOS:GENDERID should apply there the same as anywhere else: Binary presentation should be met with the corresponding binary pronouns unless there's clear evidence that the person did not identify with that gender (or, for more modern subjects, that they did not want those pronouns). On #3, I think we should default to not changing pronouns unless the subject requests it, because anything else would be presumptive, and shouldn't "compromise" on they/them. Avoiding pronouns sometimes might be the least bad option; sometimes we also just have to figure, if this person really cared that much, they'd probably reach out and ask us to change it. For deceased subjects like Xeon and Arquette, all there really is to do is follow the final statement, at least as best we can manage (bit complicated in both cases). And on #4, I dunno, I'm not opposed to they/them pronouns for someone who explicitly eschewed gendered pronouns in their lifetime like the Public Universal Friend. But they're almost the exception that defines the rule. The vast majority of people covered under #4 did refer to themselves with gendered pronouns, and I think we need to follow people's final wishes even when we suspect they might have preferred some modern option.

K, that was a lot. Respect to anyone who's read to the end of this. Responses welcome, but, as noted before, this was as much thinking aloud as anything else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, Tamzin, if this is what comes out when you think aloud then you should think aloud as often as you feel the urge to. (When I do it, it doesn't end up nearly as... coherent.) I think the categories you've laid out here and your explanations of how you think they should be handled make a lot of sense – this is definitely something I want to come back to and read more closely when I have more time. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see your 2. and I immediately think of ancients of whom we know some details but nothing that makes their gender (or at least biological sex) clear. Hieda no Are and Junia (both long assumed male but now widely considered by specialists to be women who were misidentified as a result of linguistic ambiguity) are interesting cases, but there are others who don't even have names, such as "the X poet", where X is the name of some work of literature written, or likely written, anonymously. A number of authors of Japanese literary works are assumed, based on their content or style, to have been written by male authors (court nobles proficient in literary Chinese, Buddhist monks, etc.) or women (members of the literary salons serving this or that empress, or more often than not just Takasue's daughter), so I guess in English they can be referred to as "he" or "she" once these authorship theories have been elaborated upon. (Needless to say, this is quite unrelated to the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, which I believe was not widely recognized until recently. I'm pretty sure throughout most of human history biological sex was of interest for the purpose of carrying on family lineages and gender identity -- or, indeed, sexual orientation -- didn't enter into the equation.) As for 2.3, it'll be interesting to see, if Wikipedia lasts as long, how our little encyclopedia will deal with such cases once such subjects have passed on and BLP no longer applies. Probably have to have an RFC in each article. 😅

As for 3., I think that, as a general rule, the "traditional" pronouns/determiners may be best, unless and until they specifically state that they don't like it, since it can probably be safely assumed that in such cases no one will find this usage either awkward or hurtful. (There do seem to be people who, for their own reasons, think anyone with any of these gender identities "should" use specific pronouns, but I don't think they can be assumed to find it personally hurtful, I'm pretty sure such people are a negligible minority even within the LGBTQ+ rights community, and I suppose they will probably eventually be outright rejected by said community for advocating a position that runs completely counter to said community's goals, similar to those who believe anyone with a particular sexual orientation should disclose said orientation publicly to "create awareness", as though public awareness were anywhere near as important as the feelings of the individual[s] in question.)

4. strikes me as particularly ... well, outside my area of interest and expertise. Japanese poets before c.1880 referred to people as kore if they were "near" and kare if they were "far away", so the idea of pronoun preferences based on sex or gender would have been completely alien to them. Modern Japanese is a bit iffier since late 19th-century literati, in translating European literature (into what essentially amounted to a new, artificial literary language) took that word kore and used it to translate "this" (or "it"), kare to mean "he", "him", or "his" (Japanese uses postpositions to mark the subject, object, and possessive/genitive), and kano-onna (the genitive form of kare and the word for "woman", literally meaning "that woman") to mean "she", "her" or "hers". Since Japanese doesn't actually use pronouns very often, especially when speaking of people (it's quite rude... I think the same is true of English, at least because it implies you have not taken the effort to learn a person's name), this new Europeanized style was comfortably adopted into the standard Japanese written language, and consequently the spoken language, and now scarcely a century later Japanese gender-minorities are being told by non-Japanese-speaking netizens that they "should" use gender-neutral pronouns in English... "Ironic" might not be the word for it, but...

Anyway, kochira-koso sorry for the long rant! ;-)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! You probably don't know me, but I watch your talk page and saw this interesting discussion, so I thought I might share my thoughts if you don't mind :)

It seems to me that the hardest cases are the ones where the subjects are long deceased, and the issue is trying to translate their gender expression at the time they lived to how we might classify them today. The discussion goes something like, if this person were alive today, they might be considered a [something, e.g. trans man], so one the one hand that means we should refer to them with [e.g. he/him pronouns], but on the other hand, we shouldn't press terms upon them that they didn't use to refer to themself. Of the ones mentioned above, the ones that stand out to me are James Barry, Thomas(ine) Hall, and Claude Cahun. (The same problem applies to historical people whose sexual/romantic orientation was unclear, but it's easier to avoid making a statement one way or the other when you don't have to deal with pronouns.)

Modern people, on the other hand, tend to declare what their preferences are for pronouns, and the question is just how to interpret that. For example, Vi Hart indicated that they have no preference and do not care which pronouns they are called by, and Rebecca Sugar stated clearly that she uses both she/her and they/them. It seems like these kinds of cases ought to be more straightforward, though evidently nothing is straightforward. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Shoot, I forgot one! (This is an addendum to my own rant, not a reply to Aerin17, whose post I appreciated but don't think requires a reply; indentation is to visually distinguish my own comments from Aerin's.) Sometimes an author will self-identify as "a man", or "a woman", or "the mother/daughter/wife of Such-and-such". (I won't pretend there isn't a gender disparity in the examples selected here; there is, but that's just because unfortunately most of the relevant examples are women whose identities are only known in connection to their male relatives.) So we know their gender (insofar as, with the ancients, we usually have no choice but to assume gender aligned with biological sex) but practically nothing else. Given that, as far as I am aware, none of the languages Japanese between around 800 CE and around 1400 CE could have been familiar with had gender-based third-person pronouns (Chinese, like Japanese, nowadays has a fairly arbitrary distinction in the written language between "he", "she" and "it", but this seems to be recent, and Sanskrit -- which some of the Japanese Buddhist clergy may have had some limited awareness of... -- ... might distinguish the three?), I don't know if any of them would care if they knew that centuries after their death people were talking about them in a language distantly related to Sanskrit and using strange pronouns that classified them by their gender, but I think such questions, regardless of how interesting they might be for some folks with unusual hobbies might be, are probably not all that important as far as we are concerned, since all of them are also very much dead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I started writing a few comments, but ended up like a writer in a cartoon, constantly tossing drafts into the trash. I largely endorse your four-part division above. Surprisingly, I am more inclined to accept they/them for #4. It is possible, but unlikely IMO, that such people would reject they/them pronouns today. And ultimately, we have to make some assumptions about such people—the use of he/him and she/her very much included. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

toki!

mi lukin toki pona. epiku! QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: pona a! sina sona ala sona e ma pona pi toki pona lon lipu Siko?

kin o sona e ni: tan lawa WP:ENGLISHPLEASE mi pana e sama toki Inli lon toki sina kepeken kipisi {{tooltip}}. sina ken ante a sama toki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant that I saw toki pona on your old signature and I thought it was cool :)

I am, by the way! Nice to see another toki pona speaker on Wikipedia. QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@QoopyQoopy: Ah. You dropped an "e", then. ;) Well cool, say hi on the server sometime. I'm wan Tansin—ken tonsi li ken jan there. Also, if you aren't aware of https://wikipesija.org, check that out! I'm not too active there atm, but it's a fun project, with a long-term goal of getting WMF backing. Which is a long shot, but would be really cool. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sig

That's a whale of a change you made to your sig. Did you do that on porpoise? (etc.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding my ban

Hi Tamzin. A user is accusing me of breaking my ban on restoring contributions by sockpuppets/banned editors. However, I've checked carefully and, as you can see here and here, he reverted literally hundreds of contributions by several different editors who improved the lead, both before and after HaNagid (the sock) came to that article and made a few changes (which were already modified by other editors afterwards anyway). If you think this is a violation of my ban, of course I apologize and will self-revert. But it seems like a stretch in this case. Thank you very much. Dovidroth (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth (CC @Nableezy): That is a violation. There is no "collateral damage" exception to your editing restriction. You would be allowed to pick through what Nableezy reverted and restore only things that had nothing to do with HaNagid (or any other banned user) added, although that would be tedious, and fairly high-risk if you happened to mix up who said what. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I have self reverted. Dovidroth (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RfA

Hey T. Something about the syntax highlight part of your RfA comment is breaking the count. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Someone named Nyxaros is trying to drag me into their edit war, at least I think they are. In any case, before I responded to them inappropriately dressing me down as they reverted my contributions, I saw they likely violated 3RR in his snark against me. See:

• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&diff=prev&oldid=1181873292
• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&diff=prev&oldid=1181871580
• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&diff=prev&oldid=1181867326
• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mission:_Impossible_–_Dead_Reckoning_Part_One&action=history with combative inappropriate NPA language in subject header "Read...it's not that hard" and here indicative of a battleground mindset.

...and maybe more reverts on the same page from earlier, I lost count.

Another moderator had politely warned him to stop canvassing him and others to protect his POV, and to work things out for others, basically saying his axe to grind is willfully not taking into account reasonable contributions.

The heart of the dispute is that this user is trying to make a disruptive WP:POINT that aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be the arbitrator of critical consensus, as he was admonished for doing so here, see this example, when it turns out that an WP:RS etiquette tailored toward film articles under MOS:ACCLAIMED says otherwise.

Editwarring by this editor also spilling out over to other pages as well like the movie "Oppenheimer" and "Saw X" and likely others, if you dig deep enough into the editor's history.

With all this effort by him to get others reprimanded for their behavior, feels like his own behavior is an example of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If this is the wrong please to address all this then forgive me in advance and point me in the right direction? Thanks. Gwankoo (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, Ethiopique? Why would you bring this to me of all people? I can only think of two or three admins more likely to recognize you. Well whatever, blocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it's been a while since we had CU data, @Girth Summit: want to take a look under the hood? Right city, obvious similarity to Special:Contribs/2601:282:8100:32A0::/64. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this them? See especially the geolocation and this comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! 3mo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

CU shows nothing of interest -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Indef of Ali36800p

Hi, as an editor involved in their reporting to ANI, I support a block being imposed but I am not so certain about it being indefinite. Perhaps I assume too much good faith. Do Slatersteven and EducatedRedneck have any views on this? Pardon me for asking. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd originally envisioned a short block, with the notion that all Ali36800p needed was a wake-up call. The threat of socking, and the proliferation of single-use IPs on the Talk:Iraq war page make me think that this wasn't a joe-job, but maybe WP:MEATPUPPET. I would not object to a time-limited block, but their subsequent response to the block has made me think an indef, where they have to show they're ready to contribute congenially, is better. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Indef is not infinite. Once a user shows they will straighten up and fly right, they can be unblocked. The idea that behavioral issues will end after a time limited block is a misconception devoid of root cause analysis.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

the threat to block evade (they were informed about socking at the ANI, it is down to them to understand the policy) is problematic. It seems to be that this is very much an issue with them, they rush in without reading policy, and then hope they get it right. So there are serious wp:cir issues here, and it does seem they will be a time-sink. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: The socking "threat" doesn't bother me that much because I don't think they know what they're threatening... But there's the rub. Anyone can say "I know what I did wrong and I won't do it again." We expect blocked users to be able to articulate what exactly that was, though. They were arguing backward from a foregone conclusion, citing any source they could find that they thought supported their claim. I'm not yet convinced that they know how to avoid that, even assuming they're serious about wanting to. If you'd like to give them some advice, by all means; and if another admin said they wanted to unblock I wouldn't stand in the way of it; but I'm not currently inclined to unblock of my own initiative. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

My (original) view was, if they were unblocked/converted to a time block, then this would effectively be a probation (we are watching and there are no more chances). The responses here allay my concerns. Thank you all for your responses and your time. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Asking for a second opinion. Given this edit by our friend, and this edit by another, does the edit history of the second editor cause you any concerns? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi

You certainly have an interesting talk page. Like ANI on RedBull, but without the wings.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Well it's no WP:ANI 2.0. But it does attract an interesting variety of things. (Personally I find chicken tikka masala tastier than mops or brownies.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm. brownies. How's that go with okra?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a @Valereee question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I can only think of one green vegetable that works with brownies, and it doesn't actually improve the actual eating of them. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Mmmmm. (nods knowingly)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin

I'm new to Wikipedia, as for my latest edits I have used information sources, I posted them on my talk page, a bit about me I'm a Autistic, Bipolar, Queer Trans, Ashkenazi Jew, I joined Wikipedia to edit what I've been trying to, people here aren't accepting the article source's I've found, there is more than one in relation to each of the comorbiditys

AshkenazJewi , I joined Wikipedia to Jew

Remote123457 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Remote123457: Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm "autistic" with a side of bipolar and Alzheimer's for dessert. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Remote123457. I'm actually also all of the things that you said you are (for some value of "autistic" and for some value of "bipolar"... I usually just say "neurodivergent"). I definitely appreciate you wanting to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mood disorders. However, like I said in the note on your talk page, medical statements require high-quality medical sources. That would mean things like systematic reviews and meta-anlyses, the kinds of thing you find on Google Scholar—not just info pages from various websites. That's why your edits have been reverted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 14:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

ping

Hello. Did you receive my ping from a few hours ago? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Yes, please see Special:Diff/1181980289. Thanks for catching my error. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks, but the message/template wasn't my doubt I meant to ask, did you find out why you didn't receive the ping from the bot? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like I have Cyberbot I muted, because it always sends me redundant notifs at WP:CHU/S and I got sick of it. Guess that answers that. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

hehe. all is well then. see you around :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User talk:67.237.166.144

Hello Tamzin. Can you please clarify why you decided to lift the pageblock that I imposed? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. This was related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Audit of indef IP blocks. Occasionally admins accidentally click indef when blocking IPs, which I assumed was the case here, since there was no indication of any exceptional circumstance justifying an indef for that IP, which has never edited outside of a 1-hour period last December. As part of going through the list of old IP indefs, I resolved to start by clearing out recent ones that fell into that category; given the number of such blocks, I felt it was better to notify admins generally, as I did in the AN thread, rather than to send out pings to each admin who had made such a block. Is there a reason that this IP should still be blocked? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If I had accidentally blocked that IP editor from editing the entire encyclopedia, then I would have no problem with your unblock. This IP editor, though, intensely disrupted one specific article, and I indefinitly pageblocked them from that specific article, leaving them free to edit over 6.7 million other articles, plus the vast multitude of non-article pages. In my view, all they would have had to do is say, "I'm sorry. I won't do that any more", but they didn't. I expect to be asked to comment before this type of reversal of a pageblock that I imposed. It is a minor issue and the chance of disruption is likely negligible at this point. But I do not think that pageblocks of an IP address that has never made a single productive edit, either before or after the pageblock, should be treated the same as an indefinite sitewide block of an IP address that seems to have been used by different people, for edits of various types, some good and some bad. Do you see the distinction that I an making here? Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I totally see the distinction you're making. But I don't think it gets around the problem that we don't know how long a given person will be on a given IP. That's the main reason that WP:INDEFIP says not to block IPs. We have no way of knowing if that vandal is still at that IP, or even still lives in the same state, or even if they're still alive. And while an indef IP p-block does a lot less damage than an indef IP siteblock, in terms of potential collateral damage years/decades down the line, in aggregate they still do all add up. But I'll grant that the rule against indeffing IPs predates p-blocks, so maybe there should be some discussion of whether it should apply to them, and if so how much. If you want to start that discussion at WT:BLOCK or somewhere else, or even just as a sub-thread to my AN thread, it might be one worth having. I could reinstate the p-blocks I've commuted pending an outcome to that, if you prefer; or we could leave it in limbo the other way, without prejudice against reblocking if there's consensus that such blocks are OK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, related to factors both on and off Wikipedia, I do not have the appetite to begin such a policy discussion. But if you want to start that discussion, ping me and I will explain my thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey Tamzin, it's great to see you in action. I hope you have sunny days ahead. Take care! Infinity Knight (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

stacey-lite ?

What does it all mean? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: It's an incel term for a moderately attractive woman, with connotations of trashiness and promiscuity. I could probably link you to scholarly sources or something but instead I'm going to link you to a video from an absurdist YouTuber, because it's a free country and I can do what I want: [6] (@5:08). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's OK. Just not up-to-date with all you youngsters' latest slang. BTW. I think that user page needs full protection. I'm sure we all have emotions over this, but really. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I wrote up an essay I've been meaning to write for a while. Would love to hear your or anyone else's thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that, it's an angle that I really hadn't considered. I've had any noteworthy interactions with such users so I suppose it's easy for me to say "WP:DENY" from the peanut gallery, but I understand that reality would much messier and more complex for people who've been directly involved with them. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful, of course. You hit all the nails squarely. My first such was Essjay. When I first started, Essjay seemed in many ways a model Wikipedian and a fine person. When I returned from a Wikibreak, I found out it was all a lie. I felt the anger at betrayal mixed with the grief of loss of what-never-was, as you describe it in the essay. I mourned/mourn the person who never was. In a way, I feel a little of that like with Lourdes. Never idolized her as I did Essjay, but still. I think we all, to a greater or lesser extent, hold ideal versions of the encyclopedia and the community in our hearts and minds. The realization of a Lourdes crushes our hearts and bruises our minds. So, yes we need to not deny those feelings and cover grief with anger. And we need to treat the grieving with compassion and understanding. (I think the Foundation should provide a clinical psychologist, like a real employer would, but that's a different discussion.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Censorship?

Even if we disagree with another editor, that edit [7] wasn't necessary IMO, and expressly went against TPG and ROLL. Would be polite to restore it. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the thoroughly obnoxious terminology involved ('stacey-lite' in particular has its origins in the incel movement) I'd say that 'censorship' was a fairly mild response to the post in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kashmiri: Are you familiar with the meaning of "stacey-lite"? See above if not. Please also note that WP:ROLL does not govern use of rollback for edits with custom summaries. (I used rollback because two edits had been made, and reverting via restore does not send a ping; I wanted to be transparent with Feyd about the revert.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What AndyTheGrump said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I agree that the comment in question was grossly misogynistic. Personally I can see valid grounds for revision deletion - I wouldn't want for anyone else to think such comments are permissible to make in a space where female editor retention and prohibiting harassment are of high importance. Patient Zero^talk 03:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I admit I'm not familiar with the term "stacey-lite", However, our policies don't permit removing other editors' comments even if they are invectives, uncivil, misogynistic, racist, etc. The targeted editor may, of course, but it's better to take the matter up with the author. It may sound hard, but these are policies. Even removing personal attacks (which this was not) is termed as "controversial" – see WP:TALKNO, WP:RUC, WP:RPA, etc, — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to wikilawyer this, @Kashmiri: TALKNO allows Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. RPA says that Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. RUC says essentially the same thing. So, yes, our policies do permit such removals, and they are in fact fairly routine when people say offensive bullshit. But if you feel I erred in my interpretation of policy, you are welcome to raise the matter at WP:AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 09:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) OMG, that was so removable. I cannot believe anyone would argue against its removal. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW - good removal IMO - purely due to the inclusion of "stacey-lite". And sorry Tamzin for causing a bit of hassle for you over this.

In case of interest, here's my excuse for the unhelpful post. I semi habitually drop incel & other youth lingo into my RL conversation and in that context it's helpful as an opener for discussion to reduce what I see as harmful ignorance among my fellow 50 somethings about the unique challenges faced by today's young people. I'd normally not have used it on wiki but was a little unbalanced due to the Lourdes revelation. I'd always liked them plus felt indebted as theyd been of great help to the Colonel and myself. I was shocked to see them under attack, then relieved as I saw tactical possibilities that I thought has a good chance of saving them from a desyop, then gutted to see them signing a warrant for their own permaban with the WiFi Wifione confession. Again, sorry Tamzin & thanks for reverting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Somewhat unhelpful autocomplete there, FeydHuxtable? It's presumably the "Wifione" confession, not "WiFi". Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC).

Well I appreciate your reconsideration here, @FeydHuxtable, but could I nudge you to think a bit deeper about that overall approach? I'm a Zillennial, and a lot of my friends are Gen Z, and I wouldn't say incel culture is at all representative of younger generations. (In my experience most Zillennials/Zoomers are either happily getting laid or happily not.) There's a narrative that that group puts out about how their hands are forced, there's no place in society for them, etc., and it's just not true—or if it is true, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've been a neurodivergent teenage boy of a body type many people aren't attracted to. I was still able to find women who wanted to go to bed with me. It's a really sad thing that happens, the incel rabbit hole, but if you want to talk about the challenges of the younger generations, that's not where I'd start. Zoom out a notch to mental health challenges, and then take in the full picture of a mental healthcare system in shambles, ever-rising rates of deaths of despair (suicide + overdose), and a complete lack of financial security to tackle any of that. That's the shit I see my younger friends deal with, the ones who call me in crisis, the reason I got good at finding people on short notice, the reason I could run someone through a wound care checklist in my sleep, the reason my heartrate doesn't even go up anymore when I see a suicide threat. The same friends who need $100 to not be homeless, or a place to crash when their parents kick them out when they're working full-time but still can't afford an apartment where they live. A bunch of scared and confused kids trying to navigate a world built by past generations for past generations, who raised them to have a set of skills that mostly doesn't apply to that world, and now blame them for that deficiency. That's the real youth crisis. Not girls not wanting to put out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You can Tamzin, I have, and I will be trying to change my appraoch. A nudge at the right time from the right person can be hugely valuable, so thanks again. Our perspectives on this are probably more alike than you might think. I too felt economics was the place to start and focussed in that domain for decades before I began to suspect such one dimensional attention may be sub optimal. In line with this, when I arrived on wiki back in 2008 I was doing things like publising the 'Keynesian resurgence' that aimned to relieve much of the economic stress resulting from the crisis, and was slightly ahead of the available WP:RS as I didn't know about WP:OR back then. Anyway, I think youre 95% correct with the above analyses. I could talk about the other 5%, but you didn't ask for my opinion so you'd have to invite me. I'm not sure you'd want an old man trying to explain such a sensitive topic to you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with moving

Could you please help change the titles of Clitoris to "Human clitoris" and Animal clitoris to "Clitoris" (if it's possible)? Thanks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Autisticeditor 20: That sounds potentially controversial. I would suggest a requested move. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How do I do that? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on that page. Or use Twinkle. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Request to delete disruptive revisions of 152830 Dinkinesh

Hi,

An IP user recently posted some explicit images on the article 152830 Dinkinesh and edit warred with users multiple times before getting blocked. The explicit images still remain in the edit history. Can you remove them please? Thanks, Nrco0e (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Another MEATBOTter

Since you seem to care more than the average admin about WP:MEATBOT editing, User talk:CrafterNova/Archive/November 2023#Incorrect pluralization, and MEATBOT edits may be of interest. Short version: Going around replacing redirects with pipes to the article name in exactly the way WP:NOTBROKEN says to not do, and actually cites NOTBROKEN when doing it (WTF?); doing the opposite with template calls, swapping intelligible template names out for gobbeldygook shortcuts for no reason; and making lots of plurality changes that are almost always wrong, sometimes badly change the meaning, and at best are a WP:STYLEVAR problem (other than I did find one actually correct one).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I'm afraid I'm going to have to recuse there. I'm not quite INVOLVED, but I try to only be one kind of uninvolved with a given editor if I can help it, lest someone cry HOUND (and... let slip the havocs of war?). And I previously had an exchange with CN here about something unrelated. Do feel free to bring me things like this in the future; just bad luck on this one. Although probably better to wait for a response first, since all I could do right now is pile on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't actually looking for any immediate action, it just seemed like an activity-type you were keeping tabs on or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

hey @Tamzin as for more than last 24 hours anyone hasn't looked upon https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajayraj890 So I am notifying you as you are one of administrators of that lists. Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't know I added the wrong template. I don't know a lot about the arbitration stuff. There was only one other page where I had added it, so you caught me early. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh the irony

Thank you once again for dealing with the weird disruption at my Talk page. A fragment of the deleted comment got through to my WP email account, enough for me to note that if asked, my wife would likely claim that I abandoned all manner of "grooming behavior" about three hours after getting married. And that was 28+ years ago. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Should this edit be oversighted? --ARoseWolf 17:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Emphatically YES. WP:SUPPRESS tells you how to request oversight without advertising the information elsewhere on the wiki. It's been suppressed. Cabayi (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do it the way it's prescribed there from now on. Thank you, Cabayi --ARoseWolf 19:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ARoseWolf - to be very clear on why we don't publicly post on oversighters' talk pages regarding edits that require suppression, there is a huge risk that posting the diff in public venues will lead to several other people viewing it, especially if you explicitly say it contains suppressible information (see Streisand effect). Such sensitive information needs immediate removal with not a lot of attention being drawn to it. Emailing the OS team (or the emergency team if there is a threat of violence or self-harm) is always the best decision to make in these instances! Patient Zero^talk 00:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Patient Zero, Not sure there is a threat of self-harm or violence against the person in this instance. It was a case of potential doxxing or self-doxxing if the user is who they appear to claim to be. They self-reverted, perhaps believing that it deleted it not realizing that it was still in the history. I understand from the wiki-link Cabayi provided that reporting it by email to the OS team is the best way and, again, I will be following that guidance from now on when I run across these which is rare. Thank you. --ARoseWolf 12:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)