User talk:Tamzin/Archive/14

Washington DC

I need to switch to your brand of coffee. Wow! Thanks for that - JohnInDC (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: A few weeks clean from it, actually! Did have some Wawa store-brand Arnold Palmer midway through, though. Plus maybe I was a little late on my lithium. Anyways, hope the list is of some use plotting a way forward. My schedule's a bit wonky the next few weeks, running up and down the Northeast Corridor to deal with two and a half familial medical crises, but I hope to get some editing time in on the D.C. article, and I think I've found a few people who'll have time to do deeper dives than I can.

On that note, if any talkpage watchers are in D.C.: 1) I will be there from late on the 5th to midday on the 9th, with moderate availability, and am always happy to grab lunch or coffee (well, not actual coffee, see above) with just about anyone, schedule permitting; and 2) feel free to check out Washington, D.C. and its talk page for discussion of what might need to be done to keep it at FA. Or in the latter case if you're not in D.C. but just like a challenge. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Kolkata close

I didn't comment in the RFC, but had been keeping an eye on it. That was one of the most clearly written and well rationed closes I've seen in awhile, so I thought I'd give you a whale to help with your cetacean needs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, her need for cetaceans is seriously overstated. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @ActivelyDisinterested! I may have plenty of cetaceans, but you can never have too many... is something I imagine a B-movie mad scientist character saying. (See also Anderson, M.T. (2005). Whales on Stilts.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, thank you for the clear and informative close. Would you consider bolding it is not made at the behest of the Supreme Court of India? It's just that the media has been synthesizing together "Supreme Court demands Wikipedia to remove name" and "Wikipedia removes name" together in headlines. Svampesky (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: I actually did have it boldfaced in the first draft, but I decided I didn't want to put too fine a point on that and come off as hostile. I think it's best to let people read the full close and focus on whichever details they want to. But I might be convinced otherwise if there's particularly glaring media misunderstandings. Can you point to ones you've seen? I only see [1], which predates my close. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hindu headline you referenced and Business Standard: Kolkata rape case: SC orders financial probe, Wikipedia to remove names [2]. They are both broadsheets or newspapers of record, so anything printed in them (including synthesized headlines) would be trusted by the general reader. Svampesky (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: But these both seem to be about the order and the WMF's response, not the RfC's outcome? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The name was preemptively removed before the RfC closed, and the synthesized headlines give the impression that this removal was done in response to a court order. I believe we need to strongly emphasize that we didn't do that, in the case of further misreporting/synthesized headlines. Svampesky (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm still not sold that boldfacing that bit would do more good than harm. Imagine a mischaracterizatiom in the opposite direction: "Western Wikipedians reject Indian Supreme Court's authority". It was a delicate edge to walk, and I'm still inclined to let the full close speak for itself. Do others have thoughts? Pings @ActivelyDisinterested & also @Johnuniq, Cabayi, and Chaotic Enby, since they thanked me for the close. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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

However, you make a good point that we shouldn't have this close appear to be coming from a Western perspective, and input from Indian Wikipedians more knowledgeable with their country's media and cultural norms would be far superior to my own thoughts on that whole matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done on Wikipedia about news sources incorrectly reporting the details. The close is clear about the issues involved and the rejection of the court order as a controlling factor. Personally I don't see a need to bold those words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I am fairly confident that, unfortunate though it is, the ship has already sailed on our making the parties to the court case, the court itself, the broader stakeholders, and the world at large aware of the fact that this was in essence a voluntary decision predicated on internal policies and considerations. Bluntly, the community was asleep at the wheel on this one: the ultimate decision was more or less a foregone conclusion, and the time to codify it as such was before Wikipedia was made party to the case--or at the very least, before the ruling was rendered. Now we have left outside institutions in general, and the Supreme Court and government of India in particular, with the possible impression that we acceded to their authority and judgment.

That could very well factor in to a future decision by the court (or any number of other entities) to similarly attempt to force our hand on content they deem actionable under the domestic law of a particular country. With very little guarantee that next time our own eventual analysis of the issue will align our consensus decision with what is wanted by the court/sovereign seeking to enforce its decision on any such future occasion. This is a bad precedent that didn't need to happen, which could play into future tensions between the community, outside parties, and the WMF. I'm not sure exactly what they are, but I am certain there are lessons to be learned from this situation about seeking broader community input in such cases long before the point of such problematic outcomes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, but the point that brought me here in the first place: I too wish to thank Tamzin for taking on the highly visible close and making a good account of themselves at the task. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to make a political statement should consider adding something to their user page. This kind of issue will arise again and each case will have to be handled on its merits. Pointing to some bold text on an old talk page won't help. If an article were written like that close, it would get an immediate FA rating. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Well done. And my compliments are not given too often, so take it for what it's worth, but you did a truly good job on this close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Seraphimblade, and @The Herald below. I wonder if there'd be any interest in an essay on writing difficult closes? Not the consensus-weighing part—hopefully anyone taking on a high-profile close already knows how to do that—but the strategies of how to phrase things in a way that will leave everyone... maybe not happy, but at least not enraged. Or maybe someone's already written such an essay, I don't know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's an essay I'd love to read. If there's already one, a link would be so helpful. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  I do not know of any, but there really probably should be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that close, quite impressive. I'm looking forward to reading your close on this (so far hypothetical) rfc:[3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It begins "First, we must consider the arguments raised regarding tenure, neutrality, cross-wiki experience, and representativeness of the global community as a whole", and ends "There being no consensus, but a null outcome not being an option, I find that the least bad solution is to go with the person who satisfies all four of those criteria while having done the least to upset anyone. My first thought, Example, is actually only attached on a few wikis, and for whatever reason is sockblocked on Commons. Instead I select MediaWiki message delivery, albeit with some trepidation given its erstwhile 2-minute block on enwiki, and given the time it added [[Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo|bison]] to a few thousand pages and I had to clean it up. In the highly likely event that this close is overturned but no new consensus is found, my fallback pick is whoever closes the overturn discussion." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for writing that, made my day! @Ravensfire, you don't want to miss this, but careful with the soda. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Tamzin, you might find this [4][5] a bit interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Judd Hamilton saga

Hi Tamzin, I have been meaning to contact you for months but in amongst my activities here and in life in general, I keep forgetting to get around to this. Now I understand that some action had to be taken against User:2601:601:D02:2120:2D85:C84E:EE00:4AF0 which is who I believe to be Judd Hamilton. But thinking about it, I believe he had no idea of how things work here, and made the legal threat as he may have not realised it's not permitted. I do really believe he was genuinely upset and felt insulted by the remarks of an editor who basically said that he was a "nobody" and that member now I see had been banned not long afterwards. Given Mr. Hamilton's age (81) and the circumstances that caused him to react in the way he did, is it possible to consider unblocking him a month and 2 weeks earlier than his block expiry?
Regards Karl Twist (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) he hasn't requested an unblock, what's the point? ltbdl (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Karl Twist: Legal threat blocks can be lifted as soon as the threat is retracted. At the same time, don't be misled by the block length: It's only temporary because IPs change over time. If he resumes editing from that IP after the block ends, and does not retract the threat, he will be re-blocked. I appreciate that that may seem unkind to do to an old man who doesn't seem to have any real malice in him. But legal threats are a serious thing, particularly in the U.S., where, due to the way our court system is structured, it's entirely possible to become bankrupt through litigation that never even results in a judgment. When you threaten to sue someone, you threaten to put them through years of stress and to cost them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. (The WMF may cover the latter, but there's no guarantee, and I don't believe it covers ancillary costs, not to mention the effects of the stress.) So it's no small matter. But if he can retract that threat, I'm very much open to an unblock. (No promises, but definitely not a hard no.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. I doubt if the person that Mr. Hamilton threatened legal action towards would be concerned judging by their behavior. Other people would be yes. I'd probably agree with you there. Anyway, he only has a month or two to go. I have no issue with what you say. So we'll leave it as it is and see how he comes back in the new year. Anyway, I hope you have a nice time during this Christmas season and best wishes for 2024. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Glancing back at this thread during my annual talkpage cleanup... Hamilton appears to still be active elsewhere on 2601:601::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) as recently as July on Special:PageHistory/Judd Hamilton and Special:PageHistory/Caroline Munro. That's a massive range, but given it's just two articles he targets, and that he has done so consistently for years, and that an WP:NLT block on an IP should be reüpped if they continue after the tempblock ends, a partial rangeblock seems like a good idea here. @Elli, since you've been getting good at well-targeted long IP blocks, could you consider the following? Please block 2601:601::/32 from pages <Judd Hamilton|Caroline Munro> with expiry 5 years (anon. only, account creation allowed): self-promotion and legal threats; see https://w.wiki/BwFU (length based on activity since 2018). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry; was a bit busy. I have done so now. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

reversion

No worries, I was just feeling like it had turned kind of meta and thought we didn't need to include every possible example that could be scraped up. I think you're right about this one. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Val. Came upon it while working on Canceling (video essay), which I feel like is one of those links I'm gonna turn blue in either a week or a year. Coming off a series of articles that weren't exactly light stuff, including rewriting parts of Self-harm and of course writing This War of Mine: The Board Game, and I stomach all that just fine, but there's something about summarizing a 100-minute video of someone describing collective emotional abuse, throughout the course of which she gets progressively drunker, and which starts with her drinking King Cobra out of the bottle in a bathtub surrounded by trash bags, that got me questioning whether this was what I wanted to write about for my hobby. So yeah, a week or a year. Anyways, I do agree with the overall removals. It's a really tough topic to write about without perpetuating the victimization. I do recommend the aforementioned video essay if you haven't seen it. (Obligatory and very meta disclaimer that I do not agree with every single thing Natalie Wynn has ever had to say.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on incubating something in that vein about fleshing out "morally" motivated networked harassment and a chronology of the phenomenon as a fuller page, just have been busy. lizthegrey (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

From the bottom of my heart, thank you

Re: this action. I have personally had an EXTREMELY poor series of interactions where MI, CV, and IG all colluded to block me. When I stated what I'd be working on, IG edited one of the pages I said I'd be working on and then claimed I was stalking them "on a page he'd never edited before". MI and CV naturally jumped on that bandwagon and got me blocked for a month.

You and I appear to disagree on much politically, but it is heartening to see that even "foes" can look at something and agree "yeah, that's wrong". Thank you so much for bringing this to light and doing something about it. It takes great courage sometimes to do the right thing! A million times: thank you! Buffs (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Talkpage expectations

I see you have applied Talkpage expectations,I am intrested of applying some to my own talkpage,but how? UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory: You can copy the source code at User talk:Tamzin/Expectations and modify accordingly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)