User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 33

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)

I don't believe that activist will ever listen to you, even if you threw a Japanese war crimes picture book at him. As long as he's not vandalizing the article there's no reason to keep feeding him. If he resorts to vandalism, you can block him or take him to ANI for a topic ban. Cheers~ ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Already started an ANI thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Is there a Japanese word for the Streisand effect? Jim1138 (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Apparently it's sutoraisendo kōka (ストライサンド効果). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:36, 1 May 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 away from 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)

No, now he's sending them to Laverne Cox to insert her birth name. NeilN's dealing with it and the page is under pending changes. I think he also tried to send them to Cultural Marxism but the Frankfurt School is semi-ed. So no activity there yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Blarg, was typing that just as I woke up. Meant to say "away from that part of my post," and didn't quite finish that thought before saving Getting them to focus on other parts of the site instead of his article is just going "don't look at the man behind the curtain." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Aw, he deleted that status. Still on Google cache, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that he is no longer going on diatribes against Wikipedia, his Twitter has become much more interesting and much more... well, I'll let you pick the word. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Temp removal of added section

My talk page has been, for several hours now, posting the "in use" banner, with Ivanvector's approval, to allow me to be able to catch up with the many long entries that have appeared in response to to my response to the ANI. In the interim, I removed your long new section, though reading it; check with the Admin if you have an issue. The section and ideas can be returned after the "in use" tag comes down. For now, I cannot possibly hope to catch up with things, if the amount keeps growing. I did not budget time for this today, and am not yet finished with real work. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I mean this absolutely seriously, I.t: Why are so many sensible editors, with much to do elsewhere, wasting time trying to talk sense in to this guy? Is there some reason he's extra-preciously worth salvaging? I've never seen a worse case of IDHT – I'd even argue a CIR failure. It's stunning. EEng 04:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been watching with my finger over the button, hence why I left a message recommending that he drop it. That said, I'm a bit flummoxed as to how much attention other editors have been paying him as well and that's part of why I haven't pulled the trigger yet -- it's hard to tell if it's just him (which his arguments imply) or if it's him being overwhelmed (which is another possibility that, I should at least remain open to as long as it remains plausible). That said, he brought a lot of it on himself by ignoring his messages and then responding by spamming the talk pages of several users with a filibuster that really concerned him. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, AFAICS all this crazy filibustering shows he has no concept at all of how to function here. As to the original issue, my post at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#Leprof_7272_and_tag_bombing was made too close to archiving for anyone to notice, but I do think it's the basis of the central complaint.

Someone else pointed out – can't find it now – that WP:CLEANUPTAG says, "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article." I doubt he'll ever understand or accept that. I love all his bloviated posturing about how "academicians" such as himself are conscience-bound to do this and that and so on and so forth, like he's deigned to come down from the ivory tower to show us unwashed and unlearned how we can be more like the great minds he hangs with. EEng 04:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't figure the guy out. He seems intelligent but it's like talking to a brick wall on some simple issues like the user page/talk page thing and stuff like this. He's also been threatening to leave for almosst three years now. Looking at the various sections on that archived page gives you a sense of deja vu. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's arrogance, tunnel-vision, and most importantly self-centeredness (if that's a word). Like anyone would give shit if he took his ball and went home. EEng 05:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yep. I've said it before (usually playing devil's advocate to people suggesting that we ban kids), we should just ban anyone who brings up being a professor (or just a professional) in an argument. If that's truly the case, they should know how to cite sources and follow procedures.

Like I said, finger's on the trigger. I've had no prior interaction with him and have really only glanced over a bit of his past behavior, so while I do see a good sized bundle of WP:ROPE I still haven't measured exactly how much I've got to work with yet (and I don't have the time or energy to). That's why I'm waiting on just one more inch of rope, by waiting to see what his response is to my clear warning that I've tried to place outside of the clusterfuck. I'm not counting the temporary removal as he gave shabby but still good-faith reasons to indicate that the removal wasn't an acknowledgement of the message. When If he continues to engage in similar behavior without responding to me now that it's been restored, I will take that as a response and take appropriate action (unless another admin does so given that he and I seem to have a 12 hour time difference). As I recall, there's at least one other uninvolved admin who has likewise issued a final warning, though in the middle of the clusterfuck and pointing to overlapping but differing behaviors.

I am putting my money on the same horse as you. Once I have taken appropriate action, it won't have mattered whether I did it now or tomorrow (or if it would, then someone's going to take action a whole lot quicker for far worse reasons). I know it's damned annoying of me to do this but those are my reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My favorite Prof (search for the bit starting I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system). BTW (if you read to the end of the thread) I wrote that before I knew that outing is a no-no. EEng 05:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just remembered that "User claims to be a college professor" is one of the possible squares on my WP:Bingo game. Oh, and I am one user away from winning a quarter of a nothing. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been enshrined [8]. EEng 13:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't exactly approved of Leprof 7272's use of {{in use}} on their talk page, certainly not in an admin capacity (as if admins endorsing such a thing carries any weight, which I think it doesn't) but I did say that I would respect the user's wish to have some time to process the clusterfuck on their talk page. I can't do anything really about the handful of users who don't respect it. They are coming around since having a topic ban and IP block dropped on them from a discussion they were apparently genuinely unaware of, but this is being undone by the several editors who are repeatedly antagonizing them. By the way, any of you can feel free to fire a ping when you're talking about me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I issued my own "final warning" yesterday in the midst of the user going on a rampage reverting discussions on other pages which I had already consolidated, with the goal of forcing them to use their own talk page (one of their main issues). I assumed they would also ignore that warning like they had ignored everything else on their talk up to that point, then they would be indef'd. But they didn't: they obviously read my note, didn't revert anyone else's talk page after that and continued discussing on their own talk page, finally. I see that as promising, and that's the only reason I'm putting in any time on this at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Following a trail of breadcrumbs, but thought I'd chime in. I concur that LeProf's getting a little bit ganged up on. I'm not sure why certain editors (SL, BH) have such a beef with them, but it's certainly not helping things. Thanks for everything you've done to try and keep the peace, Ivanvector. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In coming to this page to leave M. Thomson an olive branch, I finally found this thread regarding your earlier "warning", @Ivanvector: (also pinging @Ian.thomson: and @Primefac: as a courtesy, omitting insult-prone others).

I would again say, before this two-admin-and-broader audience, that my efforts at "day zero" outreaches at other's Talk pages was simply misunderstood, Ivanvector. As I have said to you elsewhere: The several very brief comments made at various Talk pages took little time, and were because I knew they would be seen at those venues. They were done to deescalate and "buy time" for me to give a long, formal response on the day this exploded; what appeared to be me ignoring you, Ivanvector (and others), was simply my working offline to prepare the formal response. As expressed to Ivanvector, that offline-prepared second "response to replies"—25 paragraphs, 2200 words—became useless, so much had the thread evolved and expanded since I had read and copied it out to reply. This is what occurred, and why, however it might have seemed, Ivanvector. But I will again review your comments and their datestamps, when I have a chance, and see if I still have missed something.

Otherwise, I would again ask that you rein in insulting comments, e.g., from EEng, especially as his and NeilN's comments are in a dialog where I am mentioned, but never, by these two, ever pinged. The intent to be able to carry forth about me, negatively, in my absence, appears clear, as is their inclination to ignore/violate Hanlon's razor.

@Ivanvector:, @Ian.thomson:, I would further suggest that if any Admin involved in a situation can no longer AGF, but either engages in or promotes insults or baseless commentary, then perhaps (speaking now just to M. Thomson), it is time to recuse oneself fully from the matters at hand. I say this in re: engaging/promoting comments from insulting editors, including about my former faculty position laid forth in my User page, and very occasionally mentioned, in exasperation, elsewhere. I am indeed a former faculty member, at the main campus and medical school of a major research university, now working with three spun-off startups. This reality is unchanged and undiminished by doubt, low regard, or negative emotions it provokes. More critically, please, be clear, since no one came to my defense when the accusations were leveled: Far from being at issue, my practices of sourcing and citation are academic and hard-nosed, and are, in fact, what largely inspire my placement of tags (the supposed sole issue under consideration). In short, the whole "User claims to be a college professor" discussion line should be beneath everyone here, and especially the Admins.

With regard to the use and meaning of tags discussed here—I'll reply to that when I reply to the remaining, at my Talk page. But it is clear, historically, whatever prevailing opinion might be at present, that the founders intended continuing serious issues with articles to be front and center for readers to see (and that three distinct types of tags were created to allow this, and to facilitate follow-on editorial work). Posterity will tell whose current perspective is closer to that of the founders, and what will be the long-term impact, of the "interpretive drift" that has occurred (concept from cultural anthropology)—toward uncritically presented ("pretty") articles with no or few tags, with all tags being hidden to mobile readers, with article "grades" (assessments) hidden from view, etc.—as new users arrive and begin to work in a context where such past transparencies-regarding-quality allowed by our existing critical apparatus are frowned upon, and so increasingly hidden from reader's views.

Returning to the central point: Again, I simply will not be able to hit a "moving target" (ever-changing discussion at my Talk page). If it is not allowed to remain static, I will just archive and leave. I have about 10-15 devoted mins a day for this. In my former practices, I would look in whenever I had meal-breaks and layovers, but am not doing this (editing) now, and layovers are not concentrated enough time to address a very legalistic, repetitious, aond often convoluted accusatory body of text. If you want a response, please keep the picture static. I am not editing (save this post), and so there is no further "new news" requiring comment there. Leave the matter static, and on a free weekend, I will address what is there. (And as I said elsewhere, if the "in use" is not the best way to accomplish things—it is better than deleting new posts, which WP editors do all the time at their Talk pages!—I am open to a better way, technical or otherwise. For instance, perhaps a post from two Admins, asking no edits until my response posts?)

Finally, I won't post here, or elsewhere, in reply again, until I can give a good block of time to the formal response at my Talk page. This tête-à-tête, tip for tap in response to Eng, Neil, faculty questions, etc., both robs time, and piles on with negatives that sap ones will to play any further part here at all, esp. when admins allow AGF-violations and personal insults to occur unchecked in their presence. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

tl;dr: before anyone jumps on this, I encourage anyone reviewing to allow Leprof the requested space to sort out the mess on their talk page and reply in due course. Nothing here is urgent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

any Admin involved in a situation can no longer AGF [...] then perhaps (speaking now just to M. Thomson), it is time to recuse oneself fully from the matters at hand -- No, that's usually a sign that the user in question is going off the deep end. And at any rate, I do assume good faith from you, I've just questioned your capacity to not let your pride get in the way. If, as you've indicated, you see no point in being here, then there's not really a point in you responding. If you leave, in ten years no one's going to look back on your talk page, and nothing would come of it even if they did stumble across it. If you stay, take a break, and come back to edit, then what has been said will only matter if issues with your behavior come up again (and arguing now won't help then).

You need to think about what you need, too. If you don't have time to respond to talk page messages, then you have less time to edit articles. No one is keeping you on this site, retiring is always an option. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How John Holmes got AIDS

He did one gay porn shoot and didnt receive, the claim that he got AIDS this way is far more unlikely than than from the sharing of used needles for his Heroin addiction. I suggest you look into the facts or are you just anti gay?--TobyWongly (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

All information on Wikipedia needs to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. If you can't understand that, you need to leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Lion and Tiger Articles full of unverified claims

Both articles are terrible can you get in there and verify the claims? or delete the unverified claim them as they are against WIKI verify rules as you know. Or not interested?--TobyWongly (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TobyWongly: I just told you, the info in the introduction summarizes claims made later on in the article, and those later claims are sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's too bad you two aren't discussing articles about the English Channel, because then I could inject a comment like, "Wightly or Wongly, that's the way Wikipedia works." EEng 11:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about wikipedia validity.

As you said, since this is the site rules, it ought to be followed. However, I am qurious to learn about other sources that are not Hadith (reports from accompany of Muhammad) that has account of traditions of Muhammad. Although, kingdoms during Muhammad's times heard of him, they clearly won't know how Muhammad prayed, and other traditions he has followed. If you can tell me some of these sources, it will be greatly appricieted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Painhs (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, Wikipedia uses professionally-published mainstream academic sources. This means books written by history professors or professional historians; or books published by universities or academic publishers (such as Macmillan Publishers). Hadiths (either Sunni or Shia) would be primary sources that would require professional interpretation -- we do not accept any user's interpretation of primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking again for patience

As I have discussed here, with the participating Admin, Ivanvector, (i) I am not editing, so generating no new matters for discussion, and (ii) I am so busy in real life, that if Talk content keeps expanding at my Talk page, I will simply not be able to reply. The "in use", while not a perfect tool, is the only one available, to keep matters static until I can reply. (If there is a better way to do this, please, make that edit.) Until I can reply to the central matter—the very long, existing replies, to my initial response to the tagging ANI—I would ask that we hold-off adding new material to that page. Your statement was read and internalised, and clearly, as I am not editing, I am violating nothing that it says. When I have caught up with the central matter, I can add back your new section, and reply to it. Until I am caught up, my allowing leaving your new post in place sets an example, from an Admin, and reopens the floodgates, making it seem appropriate to all, that there be continuing comment in my absence. If that happens, I will despair of it, and leave. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, having quickly skimmed your personal postings, I would say we are largely on the same page about most matters defining our approach to content and sources. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sro23/unconfirmed harassment / trolling

• User talk:Sro23/unconfirmed (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• 66.32.48.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Evidence is a bit slim, really just the timing, but does the IP deserve a block as well? It's apparently a static business IP address, so a block might have some real impact:

252.48.32.66.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR static-66-32-48-252.earthlinkbusiness.net.

What innocent / good faith explanation is there for that IP to know about that new user at the exact minute of its creation and then post a message on Sro23's page? There's no obvious strong evidence that the IP is actually an unregistered constructive helper / anti-vandalism person. Just two previous maybe-ok edits from it, a while ago. Just my thoughts on it.

Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) There's a couple of well-known trolls who do this exact thing, create an account with a harassing username and then try as hard as they can to publicize it with IPs. Yes, the IP needs to be blocked because they'll keep at it until we do. They also usually spoof the IPs so your WHOIS is likely inaccurate. Don't worry too much about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

	Man in Pajamas in Insane Asylum Barnstar for you!
	Little user been awarded prestigious "Man in pajamas in insane asylum" barnstar for selflessly using free time on computer to improve Talk:Mark Dice![9] bishzilla ROARR!! 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC).

I'll have you know I only wear the pajamas on formal occasions like drunken ping-pong. Which doesn't happen often, since the nurses won't let me out. They would, but I can't find any. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Cicada 3301 2017 Pastebin PGP signed message

Can you please check talk page on Cicada 3301 page and suggest what would be the best way to include latest Cicada 3301s message in article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cicada_3301#There_is_a_new_message_in_2017 SyncMaster192 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just replied. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thx SyncMaster192 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Elmer Clark's ANI

I mentioned you here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_behavior_by_User:Medeis_at_the_reference_desk μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Zjec

Long term vandal User:Zjec is suspected of using multiple IPs to vandalise talk pages and even harassing other users today.

These are the IP that he may used at one point:

• 113.210.186.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.210.176.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.210.67.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.210.77.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.210.62.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.210.57.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:E68:5400:2FB4:2DFE:C7CE:735D:B00B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:E68:5400:2FB4:CD55:B195:97C0:2ACA (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Accordingly I intercepted his message boasting his troll job at French and Simple wiki:

• Simple
• French

In that message he claimed that he used the above IP addresses to vandalise while utilising the 85.87.209.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) address to exhaust administrator's attention and even deceiving them by self reporting his vandalised deeds, though I'm 50/50 on this. Startling to note that he used a Remote Access Tool to access all those computers to hide his tracks, according to himself.

Apparently his elaborate vandalism scheme partially succeeded as none of the admins realise the true nature of his scheme and his 85.87 IP remains at large. if his claims are true, this is the most adroit deception/lie used by a Wikipedia vandal ever IMHO.

Perhaps I can help you to issue warnings to him against sock puppetry and unauthorised computer intrusion?

P.S. Assuming Zjec is correct, his likely false flag personal attack against himself may have helped greatly his scheme, but that's my educated guess.

--Vitt56 06:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)