User talk:Ian.thomson

—^{Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!}

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.

If I'm not responding, that's probably because

It is approximately 8:03 AM where this user lives (Hangzhou). []

...And I'm teaching or working on lesson plans (8am-5pm), sleeping (8pm-6am), or trying to figure out whatever it was that I got that tasted like fried cheese.

If you want to:	accuse me of a Christian bias, read this.	accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this.
leave a conversational or non-serious message (wazzup, barnstar, hate mail), go here.	leave me a serious message (about article improvement), click here.	see my contributions, go here.

New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)

Waldensians

Hello, Ian.thomson - I see you have edited Waldensians in the past, so the article is probably on your watch list, but just in case it isn't, I thought I'd ask you to take a look at this edit and several sets of edits just previous to it by the same editor. I notice that one reference that was added is a French source, and there are hints that this editor may not be a native speaker of English, but besides that, I even wonder about the content. I thought you might be a better judge than I am. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's unusual to see any edits to the article, but the edits do not push for a pre-Waldo Waldensians or deny Waldo's existence and the source cited (though old) is more recent than the source it replaces. While I could try to imagine that the dating for La nobla leyczon plays some part in Waldo-denialism, I can't actually say that it does and so can't really say that there's any problem with the addition beyond possible suboptimal phrasing. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just saw this. Thanks for taking a look at it and for your thoughts.  – Corinne (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Klbogart55

Using templates thinks this edit is like a robot. Talk like a human being not a robot. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

...What? Did you even read what you wrote before you posted it? Maybe you need to back off until you calm down.

Posting templates is talking like a robot. That's what we have the bots do. Posting diffs with no explanation whatsoever and expecting other people to sort it out is talking like a bot. Writing prose is not talking like a bot. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

To my students

Hi, you found me. If you want to help with the site, that's cool -- but it would be a good idea if we handled separate topics. That way, there's no conflict of interest -- that is, my role as your teacher will not conflict with my role as an editor here. If you edit pages that I edit, that could cause some trouble for me. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"What Wikipedia is and how it works"

I really liked this condensed text. I wondered: is it substituted from a template that I could note down? Thank you very much, PaleoNeonate (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh I have found another copy under one of your above links and noticed it was your own composition. In any case, it's very succinct and to the point. PaleoNeonate (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PaleoNeonate: Sorry, no. I keep a much broader summary of a couple dozen site policies and guidelines in a TXT file on my desktop, which I hand-tailor to different user needs. You're not the first to ask, though, so I suppose I should re-post it in a subpage. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Odin brotherhood

I initially inserted the reference into the article, but it was deleted. I next tried to put it in a reference note.

Examining the article, the Wolf book was in the article for years, but was deleted a few months ago.

I simply trying to say that the Odin Brotherhood has been described by two people. How do I do that? Could you fix it? --Bovino (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to cite information from the Wolf book, you paraphase and summarize material from it, and add that to the article with a citation with specific page numbers following the new material. If you see that some of the ideas in the Wolf book are already covered by the article, you can add the citation after the existing citations, again with specific page numbers.

"There's another book" is not useful information by itself -- at least, not when citing the book itself. You either need to show how the book is useful (by citing material from it) or else cite another source discussing how Wolf's work is viewed in academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This was in the article, but was deleted. Do you think it was useful?

According to Jack Wolf's new book, the Brotherhood believe that the gods, who visit here often, are actually living in the past. According to the Brotherhood, the entire time line of past, present, and future is accessible to the gods. --Bovino (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. That's a step in the right direction. Do you know why it was deleted? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I have no idea why the reference was deleted. The Mirabello and Wolf books are completely different and were published 21 years apart. The Mirabello book was originally published in 1992 and the Wolf book in 2013.

Wolf's book has new information on their beliefs, and Mirabello encountered them in the UK and Wolf encountered them in Canada. --Bovino (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Reason of deletion

Why we would delete my account is because I don't need my account anymore. Bicycleride458 (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Then just don't use it. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 06:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't suppose I'd get any pull at the village pump if I suggested that we add a "delete account" page that presents a big note saying "we don't actually delete accounts, but you're free to leave," with a smaller button that says "I know and I still want to delete my account" that just changes one's password and logs them out? Ian.thomson (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Mark Dice

On the part of Mr Dice and others, he is NOT a conspiracy theorist - if anything he debunks those theories. Have you read his BOOK? Watched his videos? Get back to me. Let's solve this. Thanks meatclerk (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

He claims that there's a New World Order conspiracy secretly controlling things, that they're descended from the Illuminati, and that the US gov't was behind 9/11 -- to say that he's not a conspiracy theorist would require that you either:

• do not actually know what he says
• do not actually know what a conspiracy theorist is

Either way, there's nothing to solve. You're a meatpuppet trying to censor the article at the behest of your master instead of sticking to mainstream academic and journalistic sources. That your account is more than a few days old makes this even more shameful. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr Thomson, I know the process. You can put up or shut up. REVERTING is NOT ACCEPTABLE. You have no evidence of any WP. Intimidation will not work. I've had you place on timeout before. Think I won't do it again? Try me. Have a day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessemonroy650 (talk • contribs)

You've put me on timeout before? Uh-huh, right. Go right ahead, bucko. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I swear, this editor has had the strangest, most ill-timed signature change I've ever seen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And with the claims that he's put me "on timeout before" (despite having no prior interactions), I'm about ready to block as a sock. Dunno whose, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Another

In case it's missed, I reverted this sock. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked that as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bomb your talk but I could not leave that stupid heading that I appear to have left. I intended the "Another" above. OMG. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was curious. Still an improvement over the previous section. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I worked out what happened. On 27 February 2017 I added a comment to ANI with that text as the edit summary (diff). It contains the word "another", and my browser helpfully changed my "Another" in the heading box to the old edit summary. Strange thing is that I always preview—how I missed seeing it I have no idea. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh. This site is why I turned off all autocomplete stuff a long time ago. And sorry for the rabble on your page a moment ago. Wonder just how far off the rails that user is going to go. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of 37th Degree Freemasonry 27th class

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For being willing to help protect Wikipedia, despite the threat of being sent to timeout. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is because of the Mark Dice thing, +1. Here´s a less polite take on him: [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've upgraded the award. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Jewish messiah claimants

User:Aram.g.stein has been edit warring in the article List of Jewish messiah claimants via WP:3RR violation and has not attempted to discuss despite warnings. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, indeffing for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Melissa Farley

Melissa Farley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Quite a cleanup by an SPA. What do you think? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am leaving it open with the intention of looking it over more when I'm not busy. Any other activity you see is honestly me on autopilot. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

:)

	Custom Humorous Award
	Thank you for supporting our official information-suppressing cabal without succumbing to bribery at secret meetings. PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your request (article c18),

Please Sir,

can I correspond to you in private, Mr. Thomson. I do wish to clear up the issue so I hope you are neutral on this issue as I am too, at least not advocating ideology, I will try my very best to help you understand what this is about.

Thank you in advance,

Regards,

EJ VeningRijndaal (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijndaal (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rijndaal: You can correspond with me on this site. You keep saying that you will pursue any means, yet you have also indicated that this is not about courts. Are you, or are you not, considering any action affecting this site or any of its editors that involves a court, lawyers, or legal system? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not considering any legal actions at the moment, but any jurisprudence that claims either copyright or forbidden by law, these are legal issues per country. If you claim Wikipedia refrains from commentary about legal actions against this kind of selective vandalism, that is where I would indeed seek legal action, on the same premises, that is not against Wikipedia but to the person or fraction that issued this violation of copyright laws.

1. copyright infringement, is a false accusation, what I can prove, if you you want, I will send you all illustrations that are done by me, contributed to Wikimedia/pedia under Creative Commons license.

2. why it's needed to explain that advocating an external host, connected to Wikipedia, for the reason unknown chosen and accepted by at least one person ("Waarvan Akte") behaves as the 'ideological compass", obviously there is not one authority of any kind that actually is approved and appointed to do the validation of images, beyond copyright, it's deleted for ideological reasons. From what I know ony Germany has such kind of database of images that are "forbidden". I said that I am Dutch with this so I will help you in any way I can to at least make clear who decides what and when.

Please figure out what is needed to revert all vandalism, please, Sir, don't and I said please comment in private, there are reasons that intelligence agencies have their prayer sessions when it comes to a silence.

Tell me what you need Rijndaal (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no reason to worry if intelligence agencies read what I publicly post on here -- I'm not doing anything illegal. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anything you said is illegal, will you please discuss this issue with your colleagues editors.

Rijndaal (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My personal opinion: why delete images that evidently 'hurt' so much, really, not even considered as trolling it's just useless and it degrades Wikipedia, I think that these images are really relevant to the articles (also the RAF with the MP5 gun) so anyone who would be interested in, let's say about 60 years, would notice what graphic elements were chosen to help relate to the ideological/religious/whatever issues were relevant to identify with.

Rijndaal (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC) coffee Ian!

@Rijndaal: I've been reading your posts here and at Commons and they don't make a lot of sense to me. You've even uploaded an image that contained no image. If you want to talk in Dutch maybe User:Drmies can help. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug--I'm sorry, but I don't speak legalese. I can't make heads or tails of any of this. If the user could write their message in ordinary Dutch, maybe. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Drmies: I wouldn't worry about it anymore, unless maybe the image he uploaded needs to be deleted (again). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

edits related

There is a user (LakeKayak) removing a ton of content from and article and I was wondering if you could please look into this and see if it's justified? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_pronunciation_differences&action=history The edits are at the top. Since so much content is being removed, I worried about this. Klaxonfan (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see their reasoning for it. I can't really look into whether it's right or wrong right now. Have you considered raising the issue on the article's talk page? Remember, they're probably trying to help just as much as you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Klaxonfan: Now, if you had an issue with this, you could have actually brought it up to me. That would be common Wikipedia protocol. To start, I can understand your concerns. Why I removed "content" from an article, well that's not fully true. Here's what happen. One of the sources that was used has been reported to be rather inaccurate: Oxford Dictionary (US). So, I was removing references to that source. In doing so, that reduced the page by over 3,900 bytes worth of data. Klaxonfan, those were my only intentions.LakeKayak (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Internet Informant

After expiration of their block, they just re-added substantially the same material as before to Alex Jones (radio host). I personally would reblock, but I'm WP:INVOLVED. You may, of course, feel differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw and left them a message about that but have seen no further reaction. Pinging him on the talk page right now as well. When I get up in the morning, I'll see what he's done and decide from there.

Last time I got this gut feeling from an editor, the blocks escalated to something like a month, to which they reacted by socking, which resulted in an indef block. I know it may be a bit annoying for y'all (sorry), but I'm seeing if that can be avoided. Bear with me, or file a report at ANEW (doesn't hurt my feelings if another admin decides differently). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. As long as you're aware and dealing with it, whether you do so in the manner I would is of no importance. Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Thank you for your notification about discretionary sanctions regarding the Wiki page on 9/11 conspiracies. But how are we supposed to know whether or not a page carries these sanctions? Is there an indicator anywhere? Valetude (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Valetude: Yes: in the big yellow box at the top of the page that you just edited ;) it says Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Keep it going! S!lVER M. (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Was looking over some older posts of mine....

hubba hubba

And saw one of your comments I'd somehow missed. I figured that being an admin is hard work, and you guys deserve a break from time to time. So I got you a little porn to help you relax. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dude, what the hell, I'm straight! While I totally support the LGBT community, I'm just not into other attack helicopters. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete the tunnels that were being added?

After a brief discussion about proper reference and linking (in the Tea House), my IP editing friend was making links between the tunnels he had added and the Wikipedia entries about those tunnels, as well as adding references. However you suddenly deleted all the work he had done over the last few months. Why? Are additions not to be made by anyone else? BriarFox (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@BriarFox: The entries I removed either:

• Did not cite a source to support their existence (the source should be cited when the material is added, not later)
• Did not have an article specifically about discussing that tunnel (adding "tunnel" after link to an article about a geographic location that does not discuss tunnels does not work).

Those are the two usual standards for what gets included in lists. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I assume that both are not required (correct?) Is "having actually been there, seen that" an acceptable source for existence? Is giving Google Maps Lat/Long coordinates (for a street view picture) sufficient proof of existence? --- We only learn from our mistakes, not our successes. Thanks, BriarFox (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BriarFox: "Been there, seen that" would fall under original research, which we do not use. Google maps or streetview would, at most, be a primary source that does not establish that the tunnel is noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a directory of indiscriminate information. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

Re this edit... I recall there was some discussion about this issue (removing rants against consensus) a couple of months back on Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), and I believe the consensus was that we shouldn't do that. Personally I think removing good faith comments of this nature will only cause a backlash in the far-right twittersphere and draw out even more crazies. I think we should continue to do what we've been doing, which is to patiently explain Wikipedia policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If there's a germ of article improvement intent I would agree. That was just bad-faith venting. I've removed it (again). In general this sort of thing is removed everywhere else on Wikipedia as unrelated to article improvement and as disruptive soapboxing. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That was not bad-faith venting. Behind the anger and ignorance of Wikipedia policies was the contention that certain sources were not reliable and that Pizzagate is not a fringe theory. I don't agree with either of those, but we shouldn't be censoring those sorts of sentiments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't merely a contention that certain sources are not reliable, he argued that anything that approaches being WP:RS is completely wrong, regardless of the community consensus behind it. That's beyond anything potentially useful. With Who the hell are you to label this a fringe theory? You have no idea whether this is true or not, he shifted the burden of proof from verifiable sources to a style of original research with an obstinate refusal to consider a null hypothesis. He was so adamant that the only response that isn't a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth is to treat him like a troll (whether it's telling him to go away or removing his post). Trying to reason with him would be feeding a troll, even if he does not realize he is just a troll and nothing more.

If a user came into the articles on Barack Obama or John McCain and said "who the hell are you to say they're not lizard people? Mainstream sources that fail to acknowledge the truth about lizard people are not reliable because the weather report is sometimes not completely accurate, time to bring down the Illuminati" -- there'd be no objection to treating them like a delusional troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It was malicious partisan soapboxing that expressed a rejection of any form of objective outlook on the subject. and it would be seen as such anywhere else on Wikipedia and removed. What's special about this article, and when did talkpages become an education project for trolls? Acroterion (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I contrast the first comment with this comment [2], which though partisan in tone was something that could be and should be and was responded to with explanation and not removed. Acroterion (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. They listed specific issues other than "reliable sources aren't reliable therefore Pizzagate is true" and instead argued that specific sources being used to support "debunked" were questionable. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with handling unproductive talk page comments on a case-by-case basis as you're describing. I just want to make sure we don't lump all of these pro-Pizzagate folks together and delete their comments as a matter of course, as Ian's original edit summary could have been interpreted to mean. ("I'm inclined to start treating these reality-phobes as trolls. Their effect is the same, even if the intentions are different.") As a lesser matter, I also want to express my personal view that when an editor straddles the line between good-faith dumbass and bad-faith troll, we should try to err on the side of treating them as a good-faith dumbass. I have no problem with an invocation of WP:CIR as the case may warrant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, all such posts have to be looked at on an individual basis.I draw the line at straight-up soapboxing/griping. This subject has at times shown parallels to GamerGate at its height, with drive-by commentary from new and little-used accounts that have to be evaluated for evidence of good faith. Editors at GG topics eventually took a hard line on talkpages and talkpage behavior was brought back within reason. Since this topic is even more sensitive from a BLP point of view it's reasonable to demand that talkpage comments meet a basic standard of comportment. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for being a welcoming Wikipedian, while helping me out! Alireza1357 (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

...for applying Troll-B-Gone at the refdesk. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated adding unreliable sources to Zamalek SC‎

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamalek_SC&diff=774318935&oldid=774318627 the user is still not communicating and determined to add unreliable sources!S!lVER M. (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd mind ...

Ian.thomson - you probably thought I would be the last person you ever expected to hear from on WP after our last interaction via the Help Desk and newbie confrontation. However, I am curious: would you be willing to give me your impression as to how I should have handled this encounter with said user(s)? I always err on the side of good faith, but ever since my discussion with you; I'm afraid I've been lead over to the dark side with cause for suspicion. I'll place all the relevant links (even though I know you are experienced in following the trail better than I ...) [3], [4], [5] for you to decipher. Maineartists (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Between a friend's computer dying, having to write a new textbook chapter for my class, and trying to ship my winter clothes back to the States, I'm a bit busy (hence the 46-hour gap in my contributions). Just with a cursory glance at the contribution pages for Bostonmarathoner456, PhysicianEdits, WikipedianCitizen, Transgendermedicine, and 96.81.125.33, there certainly appears to be the possibility of sockpuppetry and/or off-site coordination. None of their contributions have been deleted (as of this post), so you're able to see as many of their edits as I can. You might want to file a report at WP:SPI, noting that they're all single purpose accounts registered around the same time for pretty much the same purpose, and providing any WP:DIFFs showing where their actions repeat one another's or where one user starts something that another finishes. I don't have checkuser (and that's usually saved for sockpuppets that are clearly up to no good anyway), so filing or acting on an SPI is all I'd be able to do. No comment as to the actual article content as I have not really been actually study it (although I did notice that unnecessarily repeated reference 5 in one of the drafts or something). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your input and will relay your advice to Funcrunch whose diligent investigation of this matter really has brought it to the WP community's attention. Maineartists (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Zamalek SC‎ I had a vision

Again and again i am really started to feel sad for him. He is fanatical of the club Zamalek SC‎ as he created tonnes of articles about it in everything (I have already inspected this). His club these days is not good and he seems upset :).. I was not going to contest small vandal edit like this but unfortunately conflicts with current facts and article in the the encyclopedia CAF Clubs of the 20th Century. He is keeping using their club website as a source by the tongue of their club Chairman and this Chairman is insane believe me i know everything! See this MORTADA MANSOUR and GHOSTS :). Anyway it is unreliable source no facts fom CAF or FIFA as this CAF Clubs of the 20th Century...I think you gave him a good chance...RegardsS!lVER M. (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast help...User had been blocked :/ --S!lVER M. (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin Ian.thomson. Amortias (T)(C) 23:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion

Probably want to grab Kiranmaay also. --Izno (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: and Gyuioo. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with Sitchinist material being added to Enlil

I noticed that you reverted several edits by User:CadAPL in which he or she attempted to add Sitchinist pseudohistory to Enlil. This is the second time in the past month that a user has tried to do this. Just a few weeks ago, User:WikiEditorial101 tried to do something similar, although he seems to have been more cautious about it, not directly citing Sitchin as a source, but rather citing information probably gathered from Sitchin to other sources. I did not realize he was relying off Sitchin until he left a message on my talk page advising me to read Sitchin's books. People adding Sitchinist content to this page seems to be becoming a serious problem. I am not entirely sure what to do about it, but I am fairly certain that something needs to be done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Sitchen was mentioned on the Indiana Jones Channel at some point this year or even last year. In my experience all we can really do is just keep shooting. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I may have figured why this material keeps being added. As the article from the Washington Post that I provided a link to at User:CadAPL's talk page explains, apparently a new author named David Meade has been creating quite a stir, claiming that the imaginary planet Nibiru is going to collide with earth in October of 2017. I do not know for certain is this is what it is, but it seems like a likely guess. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian talk

Sorry about that, the mouse slipped just as I edited it, In did n to see the edit had gone through.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. And it called to my attention that this was more than a one-time thing, so good job then. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Appeal of the 0RR sanction filed. — JFG ^talk 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

IP edit war at Talk:Alkaline diet

That IP seems pretty static and is unambiguously disrupting the TP. If you were to put a short block on them or semi-protect the page, I'm pretty sure that no-one without a POV to push would start screaming about WP:INVOLVED. I had requested semi-protection, but it was declined with the rationale that the IP hadn't edited in a few hours, right before this latest round of reverts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why I blocked them. If I saw this from an editor with an account, I'd be using the block time to suggest a ban on grounds of WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Statue of Peace

How did I get into this? Statue of Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Statue of Peace (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) [my talk page history] And, I've never even been to Korea. Seem to be having a pile-on from your east. I might need some help here... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, was in the middle of something else. I see that Materialscientist has taken care of it. Here's hoping the JET Programme never sees my post there. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions

After seeing what happened at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Is there an Admin in the house?, I have some questions for you and for NeilN. It appears you both have very different responses to requests for action on violation of DS.

You are both admins who've been here quite a while. I've been here since 2003, with an account since 2005. I don't edit nearly as much as I used to, largely because of the (1) unpleasantness of the editing environment and the feelings of wasted effort caused by (2) articles never achieving any form of stability.

It's been a long time since I've been involved with any DS stuff (I once barely survived an ArbCom case, and I mean that literally. I was also vindicated.), and I generally avoid dispute resolution measures because they often cause more disruption than they are worth. That means I often leave problematic situations and disruptive editors to continue to fester and cause trouble, simply because it's not worth the effort. I recently requested admin help about JFG's DS and 1RR violations. The response made me drop the issue, so he's still deleting the hard work of other editors in his campaign to further Putin's POV that there was no hacking of the DNC, and if it happened at all, the Russians certainly weren't involved, and it was most likely done by Clinton and the DNC as a false flag operation. I find that POV to be founded on a profound lack of respect for mainstream RS, with too much weight given Wikileaks, Putin, and fringe sources (probably Infowars). C'est la vie.

NeilN hatted the discussion (linked at the beginning) with this comment: "Do not bring requests for discretionary sanctions here. Editors who do so may be sanctioned themselves." That came as a shock to me as it's counter to old practice. Needless to say, I now have little desire to edit there or do much at all with that subject, even though it's so important. Now I'm gun-shy, and it seems simpler to just fix punctuation errors and keep efforts minimal.

When I used to deal with controversies, DR, and DS matters a lot, it was common practice for admins to appear and deal with the matter right on the spot, as you, Ian, started to do. There was no need to appeal to notice boards. In fact, that seemed to be the very reason for the DS system. It gave admins enhanced authority to quickly act alone, without dragging other admins or advanced and complicated DR procedures into the picture.

If practice has changed in the last few years, then we should abandon the DS system, since NeilN's approach means we have to do the old, laborious, time consuming, and very disruptive DR process anyway. While that is happening, disruptive editors can cause a lot of damage. DS used to be a way to get quick action in an emergency to stop such things. Now, after 72 hours, JFG will be able to return to his disruptive practice of deleting huge swaths of content, either all at once, or by making a series of smaller edits. It's an insult to the hard work of many other editors. He has no appreciation for PRESERVE. Fixing his work can easily cause violations of 1RR, so his damage is somewhat protected. I certainly don't want to risk it.

What are your (both of you) thoughts on the matter? Do admins have enhanced authority to quickly act alone, or does DS make no difference from normal practice? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, I'm wondering why you're not looking at my close of your request: "Take it to WP:AE or an admin (not me) willing to hear your case." Admins can act quickly alone but we're not turning article talk pages into mini-WP:AE boards. I think it's fine if Editor A says, "I reverted blah again because of bleh" and Editor B says, "Hey, you broke 1RR [diff], [diff]. I'm going to ask for sanctions if you don't self-revert". It's not fine to try to host a discretionary sanctions request for enforcement on an article talk page which is to be used to discuss content matters. If you want to do that, use AE or a talk page of an admin willing to hear your case. I'll look at well-presented cases of clear-cut violations but often these cases are more complicated then what is presented. I've also imposed sanctions and editing restrictions without any prior request as obvious disruption is reflected in edits and edit summaries appearing in my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DS are most effective against single-purpose WP:NOTHERE users, and against users who open-and-shut cases can be made for. They're especially effective against conspiracy theorists, WP:Lunatic charlatans and other WP:FRINGE types. Most of the users to whom DS are applied to don't know the means by which to appeal. This is the first time where I've seen an appeal that got any response besides reversion or immediate closure.

Some of his edits elsewhere did factor into my original decision. No comment as to content (since these matters should avoid becoming content disputes if possible) but I noticed a tendency to subtly remove material with little or no discussion even after opposition from other regular users, in ways that makes it hard to track whether or not he's sticking to 1rr (which is the root of the problem). I'm inclined to believe that you and certain other users could build a diff-based behavior-focused case to take to WP:AE. It'd involve a lot of work, work which I'm not in a position to do for a variety of reasons (which is why I did not present such a case myself at AE).

AE is the most appropriate place to ask for discretionary sanctions. Some admins don't mind handling cases that are raised elsewhere, such as ANI, but AE's still the most appropriate place. I tend to view posting elsewhere more as Hamartia than transgression. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Many times a case against an established editor requires diffs, detailing of history, other editors' comments, answering questions from an admin, etc. - all unsuitable for the talk page of an article. You can try your luck at ANI or ANEW for 1RR violations but AE is the more structured environment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you for sharing your thoughts. It's very helpful. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm being vague to avoid unnecessary attention, but I noticed the new talk-page section that you have just added. It's great, but may I suggest that some metaphor other than killing should be used since that will ratchet up the conspiracy theorists with no benefit. Perhaps just "block his tweets" or something innocuous? Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Plausibility lowered even further. If they claim that I've threatened them with Tumorsyphilisitisosis, WP:CIR applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite the issues it causes the Wiki, Mark Dice might be the best post at BLPN I have seen because of your vigilance there. Prefer he not make ridiculous Twitts, but the watchlist laugh is nice. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This [6] was a thing of beauty. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Making headlines (or Twitter Twitts?) [7]. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice that he's not drawing attention to the part where I point out that, if the Illuminati are around, both Wikipedia and Dice would be working for them. He's also no longer suggesting that people to come to our site to try to fix it. And I don't see him linking anywhere near that part of the site anymore. It's pretty obvious that he's trying draw attention to that part of my post. Now, obviously, the Illuminati aren't real, so he couldn't be a member of them -- Dice must really be a member of the Stonecutters! Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)