User talk:CommunityNotesContributor

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hopefully this heads-up is taken constructively:

Please note that archive bots (or the talk header) can't understand m for months, as per [1]. (This has been fixed by replacing 3m with 90d).

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I'll check to see there were any others I did like that. Thanks for fixing. CNC (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of CommunityNotesContributor for accumulating at least 10 points in the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The May 2026 administrator elections are set to proceed.
• We plan to use the following schedule:
  • April 29–May 5: Candidate sign-up
  • May 8–May 12: Discussion phase
  • May 13–May 19: SecurePoll voting phase
• If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
• May 8–12: Discussion phase
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk 04:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The discussion phase of the May 2026 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 8–12: Discussion phase (we are here)
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Discussion phase.

On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CNC! I hope you're doing well. I was considering starting a talk page discussion to gauge ideas, but I wanted to brainstorm first to see if starting a lengthy discussion can be avoided, so I figured I'd reach out to you and ask for your two cents if you have a spare moment.

• ICE and New York City during the second Trump presidency
• Operation Salvo

I am giving a lot of attention to these two articles since following the May 2 2026 Bushwick hospital ICE incident, Tom Homan announced Trump 2 is going to send an influx of ICE agents to NYC, and before this happens (if it does), I want to make the relevant articles as well-defined as possible in case there's an influx in readership and editorship tied to recent events.

The first article (ICE and New York City during the second Trump presidency) is a large project I've been working on intended to be an overview of all things ICE and NYC during Trump 2, including Mamdani-Trump relations, Adams and Trump, sanctuary city politics, events that happened before Operation Salvo (but still during Trump 2), and also a timeline of ICE-related incidents.

Operation Salvo was announced in Jan 2026 and began in July 2025. But the problem is that I'm not sure what the scope of Operation Salvo should be, considering how the other article serves as a broader-scoped timeline covering basically the same topic. Do you think the two should be merged? I'm hesitant since Operation Salvo seems notable enough to deserve a distinct article from the larger ICE one, and since generally I like splitting information out between articles for organizational purposes. But I also imagine it would be problematic if Operation Salvo was kept short for the sake of avoiding duplicativeness even when there's a lot of relevant info that would otherwise be included on the article.

Any ideas or thoughts you have would be very useful, but if you're preoccupied that's totally fine too. Thank you! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not interested, not enough time. Kind regards, CNC (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CNC, I've seen now your draft about the radical right. Of course the idea that it's a synonim of "far-right" is nonsense, although I think that the idea of an article only about the US has its merits. In the next months I'm planning to write an article about the radical left (now entirely missing), but if you still want to try to clean up a bit of the mess on the right, I'd be happy to help. --Friniate ✉ 19:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Friniate, per contribs, I'm working on Far-right politics in the United Kingdom, while Radical right has been on my mind since the split proposal in January, but isn't something I'm prioritising right now. I'm genuinely interested in a radical left article, I'm surprised that is still a disambig tbh. Will you be working at Draft:Radial left? CNC (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At first on a personal sandbox, and after that there, yes, that's the plan. Right now I'm finishing this source review for La France Insoumise (even if the discussion is dead since a month, but I still plan to finish it and to make a final remark). But I'm also working on other things, so, it will take a while...

I can anticipate you that the situation on the left is even more complicated than on the right, because if on the right there's since some years a consensus on the tripartition, on the left there isn't (or better, there is but a lot of people use "radical left" both as the umbrella term and as the term for the more moderate current). --Friniate ✉ 20:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting source review, clearly there is more than enough sigcov for an article on the term. I can imagine the complexity, with theories like this to contend with. Keep me posted, I'll probably take an interest in helping depending on what I'm upto. It's one of those subjects I would of read the intro of by now based on curiosity, so I'd like to do that. Regards, CNC (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information to the talk page Talk:SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak if you wanted to relist it for discussion. M.S. Asher (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asher, re-listing discussions (as seen here) is only for requested moves, not regular discussions. Assuming you're looking for more input from users, then you could notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history of the discussion. However I wouldn't recommend opening another RM without any affirmative support on the talkpage, simply because there have been two with low participation and no consensus RMs of late, the latter I had relisted in order to notify Military history participants, but it didn't help generate any further discussion (hence it was closed as NC). If there is any further advise for you maybe @CoconutOctopus can provide it, as the closer of the aforementioned RM. Otherwise the Wikipedia:Teahouse is always a friendly place for good advise. Regards, CNC (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Templates you have created have been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The voting phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started and will continue until 19 May 2026 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CommunityNotesContributor,

Backlog update

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

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

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

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

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

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

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

January–February backlog drive

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

May backlog drive

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

PageTriage

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

Reminders:

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was a poor response. I've ceased my engagement with this editor as it is clear no progress will be made. I expect they will report me to another venue, I am not concerned. Having interacted with yourself before, I'm aware you are a very respected editor, so I'm sure you already know that continuing to respond will be futile. I am sorry that they spoke to you in such a dismissive and disrespectful way. 11WB (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, off-topic is a bold claim no? TP rules apply though. I try and be respectful, I haven't always been like that and it doesn't always pan out as intended. And yes, well aware, and could tell you were well aware, so had nothing else to say other than request further clarification (again you could say) that I did not receive, as expected. But regardless how much someone might 'say mean things to me on the internet', I'm always keen to learn more if there is actually any value under the hood. Even if I have to gently pry if out with a crowbar. As for reporting you? Very unlikely, at least based on my knowlege of DF, but hard to tell these days as the emboldenment is astonishing, and has peaked since the ANI it seems. It's kind of like what I see from new admins (ie MUSHROOM), but not in a good way. As I said in my comment on your TP with freakishly similar timing, take care and regards. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised, our talk page posts were during the exact same minute. That gets an lol from me. 11WB (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you beat me to it but I can't actually be sure. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After having to close two separate discussions on my talk page... I've reluctantly filed a report at AN/I. That's the last place I want to edit, but this behaviour needs to have a stopper put on it quickly. I pinged you as an involved party, but there is no obligation for you to respond or partake of course. 11WB (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and you're not wrong, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I'll wait for DF to reply, that's probably the common courtesy, even if not a requirement. Also to say I'm comfortable with the report, in case that comes up before I return. This would also be the moment I'd advise you not to get consumed by vultures while you're there, but I think you'll be alright :) CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that bureaucrats followed procedure in my comment, as they were supposed to. But a big part of WP:RESTORATION is bringing up concerns, and there isn't some blanket prohibition on bringing up ADMINACCT, although usually it's in conjunction with "under a cloud" behaviour if it's something that'll actually matter in a restoration sense. My reference to ADMINACCT was more in the sense of admins should address concerns. I'm not implying that Tamzin didn't follow it, but I'm also not implying that people who had concerns shouldn't have said anything at all. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am. I just found it disgusting, given the context. Each to their own, but I wouldn't be slinging mud at an editor given the context and their condor. Same reason I don't piss on graves, out of respect. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said on VP: I'd rather someone speak up and it turns out that there's no need to be concerned than the other way around. To be quite frank, I'm more concerned about how this opinion is being reacted to with how you find it disgusting or like pissing on a grave. I don't think that rhetoric would provide reassurance to anyone concerned about a chilling effect surrounding people who are anti-strike (and I'm clearly pro-collective action). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not intended to no, this is a personal reply on my talk page, to you. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see it as being morally consistent in my value to appreciate dissent and not shut it down, which is honestly a big part of what we're even fighting for in the first place. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you believe that. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you'd care to explain why your perspective is different, beyond the rhetoric? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Different from what, and what rhetoric? CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why you think my sincerity is disgusting. Usually people don't say "I believe you believe that" unless they're doubting some aspect of intent the person in question is not aware of (e.g. subconsciously). If you think I'm being a hypocrite in some way, I'd rather you just say so directly so we can talk about whatever this is truly about. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, I'll be crystal clear given the confusion: I found the discussion at BN disgusting, not your sincerity that I have always found to be sincere. For reference, saying "I believe you believe that" is a way of saying "I hear you, but I don't necessary agree, please don't make me archive this discussion". Kind regards, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss I'm sorry for my tone with you, there is no excuse for being that sharp with my words. Not only because it led to a misunderstanding, but because that's not the (lack of) civility others deserve. Also the last bit, "please don't make me archive this discussion", I flat out shouldn't of said that, I'm very sorry. What I was trying to say was: we have different opinions and that's OK, but given we don't necessarily agree, there isn't much further to discuss because I'm not in the mood. Instead, it came across as 'please leave my talkpage' which isn't what I meant at all, especially because it's unclear if you thanking me for that post was more so a confirmation that you were going to disengage with the discussion, which wasn't actually what I meant to imply but that's certainly how it came across. It's also a lesson that being short and sharp with words will often lead to misunderstandings which I also regret. If there is anything else you'd appreciate me apologising for, then feel free to let me know, if you still feel welcome and comfortable to do so (I'm not going to assume anything here).

Anyway, with a clearer head and after some sleep, I can explain the difference in our approaches (that are very similar, but ultimately not the same) regarding "appreciate dissent and not shut it down". I have no issues with editors dissenting, I'm all for it, but doing so at BN is not the appropriate venue, and given the context, that's why I I said I found it disgusting and disrespectful editors slinging mud there. Issues or accusations of misconduct by editors belong at ANI, not BN (for resysop), nor VPWMF. I also don't subscribe to the strategy employed that we can blend the issue of 'user conduct' alongside a broader criticism of union organising, due to the divisive nature of such a strategy. Along with any and all theories of 'silent complicity' that have also been defacto thrown around. This can easily be an oppressive self-induced mentality for anyone who has volunteered to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders, in the belief that they are responsible for fixing every problem that has ever existed, ie the empath trap. I'm also not saying the theory of such complicity is entirely flawed either, only that it's not applicable in this situation, nor should it be weaponized against other editors in the hope they will speak out, when ultimately they are not inherently responsible for everything anyone will ever do in the present or future.

Maybe I've just seen enough comrades sent to prison for conspiracy charges in my earlier life to be sickened by this 'silent complicity' argument when unfairly applied, so it certainly struck a nerve. Because when push comes to shove, it sometimes doesn't matter how much someone will say 'But I don't support that', they can easily be blamed regardless by proxy, and increasingly so even with denunciation, as raising head above sand can simply lead to becoming more of a target. I'm not saying that's specifically what is happening here, only there are dangerous precedents surrounding this 'silent complicity' mentality.

I hope that also answers what you originally asking, should you still be interested. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks of that comment was meant as a "I appreciate the clarification" without engaging further, since there had already been a lot of back and forth. I figured you wanted to be left alone and that I should respect that. I tend to be the type to be willing to talk things out endlessly in the hope that it'll make things better if people speak their minds instead of letting it build up inside, but I know that other people don't always value that approach, and I also only have so much energy for that at a time if things get tense. I could go on forever as long as insults aren't being thrown around and it's just meta discussion. 😅 I have some thoughts about the second paragraph but I just woke up so maybe I'll share them later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, in that moment I think you knew me better than myself. You're right it's always better to express things rather than bottle them up, especially when frustration is being projected elsewhere over it. Not everyone agrees, but it's pretty universally accepted concept for any emotionally developed person. I'll leave you to think about that second paragraph, I imagine you have enough opinions on that from what I know of you, or feel free to email me if you prefer.

In the meantime I need to go and mow a lawn and check Harriet the hedgehog is doing ok, wherever she may be sleeping this time. After getting her checked out at a wildlife centre recently (after some concerning daytime roaming) she's started to visit me early evenings for some treats which is cute. There was me thinking I'd scared her off by kidnapping her for a night, seems like I might of done her a favour by having a night off and some snacks. My cat is not keen it's hilarious. It's his food as well but Harriet does not like to share with felines. He acts tough when he catches squirrels, but otherwise like a wimp faced with Harriet. It's a much better story than the blue tit hatchlings that got eaten by the resident woodpecker last week that's for sure (just days before fledging unfortunately).

Sometimes it feels like whatever I do is never enough, even when it's to the best of my knowledge or abilities. Like knowing that in hindsight I should of reinforced the base of the bird house with a metal plate, I've seen it before but also thought it was overkill, didn't have any issues with nests last year either. Turns out woodpeckers will chissel through wood with ease. Nature is cruel, it's hard to not believe I'm responsible for such cruelty sometimes. If it were a lesser spotted I'd have been more sympathetic I guess. Now I try and focus on the possibility of Harriet delivering hoglets, that's a more positive outlook. RIP blue tits though.

Anyway, take care, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | June 2026, Vol 12, Issue 6, Nos 358, 359, 373, 374, 375 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Alphabet run: Countries starting with I, J, K and L Article improvement campaign: Orphaned women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Eiffel women Tip of the month: Consider contributing to two of our monthly events at once, and improve coverage of LGBTQ+ women by de-orphaning their articles. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I'm confused by this comment, CNC. WP:SILENCE is an essay about situations where no editors express disagreement with a proposal. It doesn't necessarily mean no one commented at all. I did not read your comment as expressing disagreement; am I mistaken? If so then this has all been a comedy of errors, but to me I also won't revert per Tamzin, though I think the D is relevant for an R for now. sounded like 'Tamzin is right that it's redundant but I'm not yet ready to revert'. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I thought I'd recovered from my mental breakdown, evidently not. I've read the essay before, I don't have the energy to ready it again, I'll take your word on this one and strike my last comment. Apologies. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, we've all been there at some point. And by "we" I mean me, and by "at some point" I mean 2 days ago: I absolutely fucking swear that the comment I replied to didn't start with "No". I even remember seeing the "T" in "There" flush with the left margin of the page. But obviously I am just wrong about that. (The WMF might be doing some shady shit union-wise, but I trust no one's stealth-editing revisions in the database.) So y'know, self-reverted, went to sleep, reduced activity a bit.

I've really enjoyed watching from afar as you grow as a contributor, CNC, and I gather from a few things you've said that you've had a favorable opinion of me as well. You wouldn't be the first person to be disheartened to find that my elbows are sharper than they would prefer. There's a reason I say in "On the backrooms" that I hope people listen to my preaching on collegiality enough that someday I'm not welcome here. So no need to respond to this, go focus on yourself, but I just don't want to passively gaslight you, I suppose. I try to be a very compassionate person, and am also sometimes rude, and if that dissonance is jarring to you, that certainly isn't any kind of misperception. But it turns out that when you stop being plural in any active sense of the term, sometimes you wind up more complicated, not less. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck it, let's be completely fucking honest. I'm pretty sure you can take it, or heard it all before.

I value you your judgement and trust you as an admin, even if I don't agree with all of your opinions either. You often make difficult decisions that other admins aren't willing to make and I value you very highly for that. So I guess that covers the "favorable opinion" which is entirely accurate. However statements like I hope people listen to my preaching on collegiality enough that someday I'm not welcome here is more or less precisely why I have always considered you to have toxic traits, evident in your unnecessarily rude nature. To postface, I found your essay one of the most enlightening of all and definitely encapsulates a lot of the issues that this project faces, better than anyone else's attempts to document it. But I've already melted the butter, so moving on.

Overall I identify you as a fellow empath, but as the experts would say, that's not enough to negate everything else. And yeh, it takes one to know one. If anything, it's only one who is capable of recognisng the other. While the mixture of empathy and toxicity has been documented.

To contextualise, I reacted badly because I was judging the comment you made based on your character, not on the words you presented. For that I apologise, as it is my bad, I should judge an opinion based on that and nothing else, and that no doubt eludes to my own toxic traits, one that I am no doubt expressing at present. But no, you shouldn't change who you are. There's a reason and necessity to your existence, genuinely. But being aware of who you are is as important as what you do.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to check if the hedgehogs are mating. They are loud as fuck right now, even though it's an hour before usual feeding time. Harriet is a feisty one to the males, they do not get the first feed on her territory.

Love & empathy, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, CNC. I don't think I'm very empathetic. Not that I'm by any means incapable of it, but it's not a big driving force for me. I just do what I think is just. Often that coincides with being very kind to people, but it can also go the opposite direction, particularly if I think some injustice is occurring. I find this does often make me come off as more empathetic, because empathy's a funny thing. If you have a situation where one editor's getting ganged up on, empathy can drive people to side with their friends and be part of the problem. So I show up and say "This person's being treated unfairly", and again that's not not empathy, but a lot of it's coming from that sense of (in)justice, but then I get a bunch of messages afterward saying how nice and empathetic I am. Maybe that sets a false expectation where it comes off as out-of-place when I'm not nice. But to me, it's the most consistent thing in the world.

None of this is meant as a defense, by the way. Nothing to defend against; we're on the same page. The only thing I'd dispute about "toxic traits" is that that makes it seem less like an essential part of who I am. I've always had this fear, I don't know why, of being liked for being something that I'm not, maybe even more than I fear being disliked for something that I'm not. So I'd rather clarify that I'm a worse person than someone thinks than be mistaken for a better one.

Enjoy the hedgehog-feeding. One of these days I'll get the Hedgehog article to correctly refer to the species' skull and torso as the head and chog respectively. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly I'm relieved this didn't land badly, you could of picked it apart much worse, so thanks for not doing that :) To preface, I'm no clinician and this is no diagnosis, so my opinions herein are best served with a generous dose of salt.

Regarding empathy, you demonstrate a rationale and logical understanding and application of cognitive empathy, higher than most from my impression, even if most people have a foundational understanding and application. Also, completely normal for intellectuals to have a better than average understanding of cognitive empathy (as one would expect). What you are describing is flirting with instinctive empathy, but without the absorption (good for you!). None of this would mean someone is an empath, far from it, as this is usually based on emotional empathy, rather than the cognitive type: but not always.

You are otherwise entirely correct that toxic traits are not an essential part of anyone's personality, aside from physical conditions, which is not what I am implying at all to be clear, quite the opposite. I can (and should) only speak to my own experience and perspective, and that is one of using dark empathy as a coping mechanism for emotional empathy, usually when triggered towards the darkside. A sort of personality flip you can see above that does not represent who I am or intend to be. That's why I meant not changing who you are, but instead, becoming more aware of who that might be.

Empaths can be easily swayed by toxic traits, because being emotionally invested at all times is fucking exhausting by comparison. Whether this be due to childhood trauma, the way in which they form emotional attachments as a result of that, or a host of other factors. Empaths can therefore be some of the best and worst people at the same time.

If you were a close friend and I knew you well enough, and if your interpersonal relationships displayed dismissive-avoidant traits, there's a chance I'd recommend you stop being a dark empath now; but I don't, so I'm definitely not saying that. I might have a sharp instinct but it's far from flawless, hence the salt. It's just food for thought, genuinely. If you're not experiencing or suppressing emotional empathy, then you fundamentally aren't an empath.

I've always had this fear, I don't know why, of being liked for being something that I'm not, maybe even more than I fear being disliked for something that I'm not. - yup, the sense of being misrepresenting or misunderstood, regardless of if it's in a subjectively "good" or "bad" way. I hear you. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would like to apologise for my unconventional conduct on the talk page, I had other editors pressuring me not to suggest a change to the lead/infobox, which I suspect may have been distorted by their own political views. I have been on Wikipedia for about 4 years now since I left work, although I have mainly stuck to creating pages. In light on the mess I caused, and thank you for letting me know, I will read through Wikipedia editing guidelines again. Matt. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for acknowledging though. As I said most importantly, you did so in good faith. I think one of the my first closes I made was an WP:RM that I was involved in which resulted in having to revert, thus learning the hard way.

Closing discussions is otherwise a complicated prcoess when inexperienced with closes; some involved closes are permissible such as SPLIT (can be risky, but possible), others are simply a no-go (RM and RfCs for example). Fortunately because the close was with the intent to open an RfC, due to CONLEVEL, I'd say you got away with it. Your defence, should you require it, is that it was procedural close, not a determination of consensus in itself, even if the determination made within does muddy the waters. You also self-reverted the change to the article from the determination, so there isn't much else to argue there. DF added a signature for you, so that helps too.

From my perspective there was a couple of different ways the previous discussion could of gone for reference sake; an uninvolved close acknowledging the RfC consensus as specially allowing for a change in consensus to be made (possible, subject to the interpretation of the closer), but ultimately the result of needing to open an RfC (with the discussion as more of an RFCBEFORE tick box), was as likely in reality. So you probably sped up the process if anything. In that regard, I shouldn't of said "a complete mess", because ultimately the discussion transferring to an RfC was one of the correct processes to follow. It's just how we got there that was a bit messy ;)

I hope I didn't come across as too harsh with my initial firm critique. Regards, CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Turns out the previous consensus wasn't based on RFC consensus at all despite the assumption that is was, thus the previous discussion would have been more than sufficient in determining new consensus afterall (assuming there an uninvolved close). It's a shame as now 6 days of discussion has gone to waste, only to be replaced by an unnecessary month-long discussion. RFCs should only occur due to lack of local consensus, which wasn't present. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]