User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 41

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Useful information for editors working in certain topics
This video series "The Alt-Right playbook" is almost required viewing for anyone editing in topics touched upon in WP:NONAZIS. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Prompt message
Thanks for the quick prompt message on my questions I forgot to ask would actual credits from movies would be a reliable source aswell? ZTR2001 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's one of the few instances where we're OK with primary sources, though movie credits are a bit harder to verify than online sources. In short, yes and it's not wrong but it's not ideal.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias conversation pertaining to Wiki Loves Pride
Hello, I read your note "Even though this is hatted, I'm removing a rant that served no purpose but to troll. If someone seriously believes that natural attraction to the same sex is anywhere near a threat to America as Covid-19, systemic racism, police brutality, rising fascism, an upcoming housing market crash, financial corruption among the rich, Russian and Chinese interference in politics, or even Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile ring -- nothing they have to say is worth wasting space on our site"

This is a completely inaccurate catagorisation of the conversation. I am not ranting or trolling, and I do not believe "attraction to the same sex is anywhere near a threat to America as Covid-19...", in fact this conversation has nothing to do with threats about America.

I am simply pointing out that it is not neutral for an encyclopaedia to have a program called "Wiki loves Pride" as loving pride is a moral and political stance.

Therefore I must object to the removal of the conversation as I see it is a hushing up of a valid dispute, which has arisen many times but has not been addressed properly by the likes such as people on the page.

Perhaps we should add a note to the main page that "Wiki Loves Pride" is not the opinion of the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia as to refrain from confusion.

Regards,

Ray2556 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a left-wing website because the over-educated, under-employed volunteer editors skew left. The few right-wingers left years ago for Conservapedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, I removed a post by that described human rights for LGBT individuals as "one of the greatest threats that the society considers today. Many have and are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to defend the rights of Americans to resist it" -- In other words, my assessment was accurate.  Somua35 did not contest my description of his post.  As you have quoted, I said "even though this is hatted, I'm removing..."  What did I remove?  Your post?  Show us with a WP:DIFF where I touched or spoke about your post.  Unless Somua35 is a sockpuppet account of yours, then my action was about someone else's post.  This conversation suggests you have a problem of ignoring facts when they get in the way of your anger, an attitude that's pretty useless when contributing to an cooperative project (especially an encyclopedia).  If this is generally not the case for you, then you need to find a topic where you think clearly.
 * LGBT people are a persecuted minority. Their orientations are not a simple choice but a result of genetics and neurological hard wiring (with any nurture elements being early enough in life that you can't really change it now).  As a Christian, I believe we should love people -- especially downtrodden -- instead of spreading false witness to deny their humanity and right to live.  It's not like loving someone for choosing to be a Nazi or choosing to be a domestic abuser.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Easy on the accusations
Your edit summary on George Floyd protests "Undid revision by Dtatsu - the same problem exists with this edit as the other -- you are pushing a term normally favored by white supremacists to downplay the legitimacy of protests by African-Americans. If that is not your goal, you need to discuss the matter instead of silently edit warring." was overly belligerent. The term "riots" was used multiple times throughout the article due to proper RSs. I personally disagree with Dtatsu's edits but lets please refrain from hurling insults as it discourages proper editing from new editors. Anon0098 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits on this subject are fine, Ian., you are 100% wrong. That isn't bitey in the slightest, and it is you that needs to dial it back. Youve been here a couple months. You have neither the knowledge or experience to be instructing an administrator, with thousands of edit and many years experience in matters of Wikipedia policy, behavior or etiquette. I'm reasonably sure Ian will file this appropriately - in the cylindrical file that sits on the floor, exactly where it belongs. Is you gonna be all butt-hurt now? John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for white knighting, I don’t frankly care how much prestige you boast on here, I am simply suggesting that we should refrain from accusing people of using white supremacist vernacular without justification. I even said I agreed with the edit just not the accusation Anon0098 (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny, I've generally don't see the phrase "white knighting" used outside of certain circles. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And if we're going to pretend that it's not part of a vocabulary for particular groups, you're as guilty of white knighting for Dtatsu and not really in a position to point out anyone else doing that. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One is a rebuke and one is defending a person in a situation you have zero original reference to — the latter is laughable. I got my point across regardless. Not going to argue with someone I have never even seen before, so Peace, Anon0098 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so things you do are OK when when you do them but not when someone else does them to you, and you don't want the opinion of a third party to prompt you to consider that you might be wrong, got it. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle here. While biting newcomers is not generally good, certain topics do attract users who are not here to help (and they aren't upfront about it) and some who, while theoretically having the right to their beliefs, do not need be given the means to voice them and should be shouted down whenever they whimper.  My actions are not perfect, they are moving towards a line -- but still not crossing it.  While that line should not be crossed, and it's disruptive to make a show of running up to the line but stopping for purposes other than helping the site, staying as far away from the line as possible is less than useless.
 * I try to make sure to include lines like "If this is not your goal" to show the assumption of good faith that that wasn't their intention, or even give them a way to gracefully back down if it was. Instead, we have sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And I appreciate the sentiment but I figured I would point out that line, since I don't want it moving if you catch my drift — the rest of the article is fine. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios
Thanks very much for the fast cleanup on Mottingham. Now that I look, I see Diannaa rev-deleted material from the same source immediately before that, so I could have saved myself the search on "capacious" or whatever it was that triggered my suspicions. I had originally planned to figure out how to ask for the history to be cleaned, but the rewrite turned into a multi-hour marathon ending after 1 am my time, and I was even too zonked to notice I'd messed up the Commons cat template. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor advice for newcomers
Hello Ian, I have created a page called WP:Editor advice for newcomers where you can provide comments to help newcomers on Wikipedia. You are welcome to share your thoughts on what would help newcomers be better editors. Interstellarity (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

unilateral insta-block
Recently you immediately blocked user CorrectingBias after he made one and only one article edit. That edit was quickly reverted by one of the editors who patrol that article, and had the user you blocked continued with similar edits he might very well have ended up blocked anyway. I don't think there was any real chance of edits like the one that caused you to block him making their way into the article for more than a few minutes or hours at a time, as it is read and patrolled by many people. The editor who reverted, for example, is a highly active SPA for purposes of all articles on race and ethnicity-related controversies, which she monitors and in some cases takes control over.

My question, though, is whether a single edit that happens to offend a roving admin is in and of itself grounds for instant unilateral blocking. You cited NOTHERE and CIR, but WP:CIR lists blocking as a "last resort". The user in question asked a question on Doug Weller's talk page, which you apparently follow, at which point you immediately hammered him down. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * a brand-new account that names itself "CorrectingBias" which immediately edits an article about a work widely recognized as antisemitic and written by a noted white supremacist and conspiracy theorist, replacing those statements with fluffy language about the point of view being "alleged" by unspecified sources, is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; see WP:PROFRINGE. Whether that's an immediate block or a warn-and-wait situation is up to admin discretion. However, you might notice in the article history there is an anonymous editor making specifically the same sort of edits to that part of the article, and also railing about the intro's "bias" on the article's talk page. That IP was blocked on 6 July, and CorrectingBias arrived 11 days later to make the same edits. Either they're the same person or they're responding to a request somewhere to "correct" the article, a very common approach by civil POV pushers and brigaders. So, yeah, this was a good block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not notice the IP edits, and I don't share the assumption that the edits are probably correlated, but if that was part of the reason for the block it does make more sense.
 * I recently made some edits to that article and have followed the edit history and talk page, and that of some similar articles such as Ron Unz. One reason that there are a lot of "sympathizers" showing up with FRINGE or NAZI edits on the articles is that some of these articles are ridiculously slanted, as though Wikipedia's role is to be a  didactic good-or-bad classification service.  The articles on MacDonald, Unz and others have been a free for all of edits painting them with stuff outside of their actual views and activities, and this is a problem regardless of the unsavoriness of those views. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that a noted white supremacist and conspiracy theorist is going to provide insight into Jewish culture is reason enough for someone to not be editing.
 * Nazi editors would be showing up to articles on their favorite topics to complain until we look like Metapedia. They're not just gonna stop at WP:GEVAL.  We only cover fringe claims to point out what mainstream sources say about them: that they're wrong. We don't owe them anything more than that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said. Thanks for taking decisive action. Well done. El_C 21:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The complaint about "insight" mischaracterizes that part of the edit and then dramatizes the mischaracterization to justify a block.  With that said, I was not asking for reasons or justification for the block or a debate about whether the blocked account is a Nazi, but about policy on instant blocks of brand new users based on single edits. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That response like telling an admin who blocked a vandalism-only account after only three edits "I was not asking for reasons or justification for the block or debate about whether the blocked account is a vandal, but about policy on instant blocks of brand new users based on single edits." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, double checking the article history and then Special:Contributions/Generalrelative, calling  an WP:SPA is dishonest to the point of being a personal attack.  Between that and your accusations of someone else being a "notorious anti-Trump editor" for merely pointing out that John McCain was a Republican (even if were Trump would like to think otherwise), I'm wondering how long until AP2 DS gets thrown at you.  This prompted me to here, finding that no matter how many people are involved, including third-parties, anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have any reason besides POV-pushing!  There's also you accusing the SPLC of slander for not sticking to a naive reading of an author you like and saying Stephen Jay Gould "was a purveyor of a considerable amount of demented nonsense under an academic veneer" because of his opposition to racialist views.  Then there's this post where you accuse a section directly summarizing current pieces from the Associated Press, NPR, WaPo, The Atlantic, Politico, and many more as being a "SYNTH POV" "selectively anti-Trump screed."  One must never question fearless leader, eh?  Others have pointed out the beam in your eye when you try to make a mountain out of the speck in others, and you completely miss it.  Honestly, your prior history leaves you with less than no room to accuse anyone of being an SPA or POV-pusher with regards to race or politics.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this story ends in quite the way that you imagine.


 * The link salad you just posted rather badly (and obviously) misrepresents 10 out of 10 cited comments of mine in order to imply racism, Trump worship, dishonesty and other nefarious sins. Both the sheer number and the individual extent of the misrepresentations, were we to go through them item by item, make the totality hard to describe in anything but the most uncharitable terms.  I'm happy to go the fisking route and will probably even have the time to do it in the next day or two.  If that's what you want just say so, or (equivalently) do nothing and keep the salad as-is.  But you might save time for me and face for yourself by making some corrections instead. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple users have told you the block was good and why. If you want to go for arbitration, be prepared for a boomerang. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Pizzagate
You asked:

Would you say the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is:
 * debunked
 * not proven
 * debatable
 * not debunked
 * plausible
 * proven?

I would just say it is alleged as it has neither been proven or disproven thus far.Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your saying "false accustions" is a violation of POV without proof.Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So allegations without proof are true?
 * So if I don't have proof that you rape babies in the name of Satan, then it's just alleged and not "false"?
 * Do you not see the utter stupidity in that? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually saying you rape babies in the name of Satan, just pointing out how ridiculous your argument is. Pizzagate and QAnon argue that children were being kept in a non-existent basement.  QAnon has gone ahead to make further predictions that have repeatedly failed, as documented in the article.  If you can't understand that, you lack the connection to reality to be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Aain you want to use your argument against me, Wiki:POV is quite clear, it's only an allegation until it's proven or disproven.Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably you should actually read what WP:NPOV says, particularly the section WP:WEIGHT. --JBL (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Following what JBL says, what part of NPOV actually says that? WP:GEVAL would indicate that that's not true.  Unless we're gonna say that we have no proof that you don't rape babies for Satan. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

2600:100E:B017:BF0:D89D:98A1:E4FE:260
Could you please block user:2600:100E:B017:BF0:D89D:98A1:E4FE:260 asap. CLCStudent (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

An instance racial harassment / attack
Hi and thanks for pinging me into the recent discussion "unilateral insta-block". I didn't have much to add there but I appreciated being informed of the conversation. You seem quite knowledgeable about dealing with racial provocations here on WP so I thought I'd ask you whether this [] may be grounds for blocking the IP range. I'd engaged with them in the past on that talk page, then they went away for a while, and now they've returned with a vengeance, making clear how sure they are that I'm a black wikipedian, of course (much as the user in the previous discussion, to my amusement, was quite sure that I'm a woman; for the record I've given no indication as to my race or gender). Any advice you might have to offer, or actions you'd care to take as an admin would be appreciated. I would be happy to take this to a noticeboard, but I'm not seeing one devoted to this type of harassment / attack, and I'm still a relatively inexperienced user so I'm unsure of the correct protocol. Thanks again. Generalrelative (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just FYI the issue has been resolved: [] Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Weboflight
Could very well be time to send them to WP:ARE for an indef for being a pro Scientology SPA. What do you think? I collected this from their past edit history (on top of this most recent edits to Scientology and its Talk, which are the most blatant BY FAR): Also as you might have noticed from their talk page, they were blocked in March on suspicion of this. Guess it was proven true lol Leijurv (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) July 29 2020 Most blatant demonstration of pro-Scientology agenda - moving the entire negative section of the Scientology lede out of the lede
 * 2) June 26 2020 - This linked article says The organization promotes[2] Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's writings on human rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights but Weboflight edited it to only mention the latter, and not that it is primarily promotional of L. Ron Hubbard.
 * 3) June 2 2020 - Weakens criticism by stating that the documents were church-protected, when the cited source says nothing of the sort
 * 4) June 2 2020 - Weakens criticism by adding unneeded qualifiers to descriptions of Scientology from a RS that pulls together other criticisms
 * 5) Oct 2019 - Adds CN to a negative statement about Scientology that is expanded upon and well supported in the immediate next paragraph
 * 6) Oct 2019 - Lowercasing the bad Scientology jargon nouns to make them seem like normal words and not official terms
 * 7) Nov 2019 - Uppercasing the good Scientology jargon nouns to make them seem official
 * 8) Nov 2019 - Removal of implied skepticism of L Ron Hubbard, despite the actual paragraph being full of "allegedly"
 * 9) Mar 2020 - Adding CN to a negative statement about Scientology that is well supported elsewhere in the article, makes the statement appear unsupported
 * 10) Mar 2020 - Scientology's association with drug rehab
 * 11) Mar 2020 - Ah yes, there aren't controversies in general, just a few that this film touched on
 * 12) - (see various diffs around March 19) - muddies the waters regarding thetans, makes the idea seem more reasonable
 * 13) August 3 2020 - Weasely reduction of what the Church does, down to something unobjectionable
 * I've been wanting to finish List of Sufi saints before I do anything like that but looks like you've done the legwork already. Thanks and good luck! Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've never done it before, do you think this is enough to go to WP:ARE with...? :) Leijurv (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking over them a little more, I think you might be overplaying your hand on some of these. In general, if you want to prove that someone is POV-pushing, collect diffs as if their userpage advocated the opposite POV (so in this case, pretend their user page says "I hate Scientology, hail Xenu and Operation Clambake").  Weak evidence is how he got off last time.  More specifically:
 * Edits like 1, 5, and 9 are the sort you should be looking for, they would be primary evidence of POV-pushing that you'd lead with. Three diffs really isn't enough to launch a case with, though (if they were that bad, I'd get away with WP:NOTHEREing them).  A large group of themed edits like 2 through 4 could help a case but you should not lead in with them.  They're best as secondary evidence that you'd post after your initial filing because they don't establish POV-pushing by themselves but (once POV-pushing is established) they demonstrate that the user can't be trusted with something like 0RR or even sticking to edit requests -- they will subtly POV-push unless topic banned.
 * The rest don't really help. 6 is questionable because jargon isn't necessarily capitalized.  7 misses that non-personal proper nouns and titles for concepts are capitalized$(c.f. Immaculate Conception, Ancillaries of the Faith, Great Renunciation)$.  8 misses that we avoid scare quotes.  10, 11, and 12 actually stand a chance of tanking a case.  You'd pretty much need them to confess that those were the exact reasons they made those edits and without that, you're opening the door to an argument about WP:AGF that's going to distract people and make them ignore your points.  13 is... similarly problematic.  If it was any other religious organization, I'd say "teaches" would be better.  Yes, the Co$ is a cult but that doesn't mean that we take an anti-Scientologist POV (we let reality do that for us).  If there was already (at that time) a variety of sources that say "promotes" and even a talk page consensus to use that phrasing, that he was aware of, then it could be evidence... But without such sources and discussion, "teaches" also works.   Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oof, thank you so much. Glad I asked now! There's just 1, 5, 9, and the edits just yesterday removing "cult" again + the explanation on the talk page, which is just four things (yeah they did that twice ). I gotcha about 2 and 4. I figured it couldn't hurt to include more tangentially related ones, but thanks for explaining the AGF component, it makes sense now that they can actually detract from the overall point. I'm wondering, do you think that their edit history means they are a SPA? Or are their "other" edits substantial enough that they don't "count" as a SPA in the first place? And it sounds like these are not enough, so I'll just wait until something further happens I suppose...? Is ARE even the right place to go, or do I go to like... ANI? For NOTHERE? (I've never done anything like this before as is probably apparent lol) Leijurv (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So they currently have 132 edits across 43 pages. I'm gonna ignore their 3 talk page edits related to their block because that was a reaction to a block (that just happened to be related to Scientology but still...).  80 edits of their edits across 9 pages relate to pages relate to Scientology.  That means ~60% of their edit count relate to Scientology, which is probably the minimum you'd want before you start to accuse someone of being an SPA.  Most of their non-Scientology edits were or could have been marked minor and mostly occurred during two periods: before being autoconfirmed and after being blocked.  It's also somewhat telling that their non-Scientology edits don't show some sort of belief in pseudoscience or conspiracy theories, because the Co$ brainlubes anyone approaching OT III with stuff like the Zeitgeist (film series) and Loose Change.  However, because only 9 out of 42 pages (ignoring their talk page) relate to Scientology, rather than say "SPA," I'd present the other stuff and let people draw their own conclusions.  Then again, the level of proof of SPA-ness I'm considering is more worthy of an indefinite block or site ban than a DS topic ban -- but that's probably going to be the case with other users if you actually say "SPA."  So, no, not ANI for NOTHERE but ARE for a topic ban when you've got like ten-ish primary diffs.  And you're not running off to every noticeboard accusing me and Weboflight of secretly being David Miscavige and Tom Cruise, so you're doing quite fine.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Katabatic
Is it just me, or does the "come to my senses" comment seem like gaslighting? I know I should AGF, but that's a remarkably rapid change in tone from their first unblock request. Just my 2¢. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you made this very point in your response. I should have read more carefully. Sorry to bother you :) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Guideline on Medical Advice
In the period 13-22 April 2018 you contributed to a discussion on the subject of the Reference desk guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 130

This subject is now being discussed again in a Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Dolphin ( t ) 13:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Guardian101
Guardian101 continues to make disruptive edits on the Genghis Khan article. He has been reverted again by another user. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After going through more of their edit history, I've decided to block them indefinitely. They seemed to be behaving the same way in just about every article they edited. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Message from Jzio
I'm a new user and I'm not sure if you are able to see responses on my talk page so I'll copy and paste it here:

🤷🏽‍♀️ Why not take it a step further and just ban me from the site? It's clear that I am not welcome to contribute. The article is deliberately misleading and should be categorized as political disinformation. Your editors are political hacks, valuing politics above all other value. If I'm ever reinstated, I will continue to abuse the rule, because the references are not truthful, a higher principal than the rule I choose to violate three revert rule. I indicate the lack of truthfulness in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._Edward_Griffin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no the article is deliberately not misleading, unlike the mad Bircher nonsense that Griffin promotes. And Media Matters have nothing to do with it: we have been fighting off Birchers for a decade or more on that article. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You actually are heading toward an indefinite block from the site. Promoting a conspiracy theorist, calling people "political hacks," assuming everyone's out to get you, assuming that mainstream sources have a personal vendetta against your hero, and generally ignoring sources all tend to result in blocks pretty quickly.  For certain other articles, I would have long since blocked you.
 * If there is any part of you that's not a hateful paranoid, consider the possibility that maybe there's a community here that, if you are capable of learning, you could join and improve. But no, keep going on about how we're all political shills for Media Matters out to libel an crank.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You have made it even more clear that I am not welcome. I have only been here for a week and I'm unaware of your decade old battle, to quote you "we have been fighting off Birchers for a decade or more on that article." Personally, I'm a moderate, and an elected DNC delegate for Hillary Clinton so I can say, as a moderate, this article is not fair but it does represent the notion that you "have been fighting off Birchers for a decade". Good luck with your censorship! Please turn my account off. I don't want to be part of your games. 🤷🏽‍♀️ Have fun in the next decade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs)
 * I'm pointing out that the behavior and attitude that you have made a willful choice to continue in is what's not welcome. If you want to try to engage in a cooperative project that uses mainstream sources, then we can help you with that.  If you are serious about wanting to turn your account off, make one more post at Talk:G. Edward Griffin or about Griffin anywhere on the site.  If you don't want to be a waste of time and bandwidth, find another topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Casting aspertions
Hello there, for some reason this thread was completely ignored by admins and eventually archived. Those are some pretty serious aspersions, thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are bad but ANI is woefully inadequate at dealing with incivility. I've opened their contributions in another tab and will try to look through it some.  What usually works better than finding aspersions cast towards you to find comments they've made elsewhere that indicate incompatibility with the encyclopedia (such as them promoting a fascist organization over academic sources).  Typhoon currently going through my town, so I have to prep food today instead of running to the corner shop (I need to remember to stock more junk food next time). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, ones health and safety is much more important than Wikipedia, stay safe and thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Ian, I stopped by to give you props on the methodical approach you took to your recent ANI filing, but I'll save the substance of that for another day and instead say merely that I hope Haishen has left you relatively unscathed. All the best, with respect. Snow let's rap 03:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you. It's mostly passed me without issue.  I'm actually going to check in a few hours if the corner store is open.
 * Probably not, and it's fine if not but I was already planning to cook lunches for the workweek so I didn't want to cook dinner on top of that. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Words to live by
Hello I. I admire this post and the links provided. You'll want to sign it when you get a chance. Have a pleasant week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Having worked so much on the 'pedia's film articles a philosophy I've developed is "if I think it is really important scene and should be part of the plot section" it probably isn't and doesn't :-) Less is more are more words to live be. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Language, please.
I do not like bad language on Wikipedia. I am a police officer and you were being rude to me. I have read the Guide to requests for adminship and the WP:RFA as well.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealPoliceOfficer (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure officer, I'll be sure to watch my fucking language from now on. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gosh you're so monotone. Have a lil fun here bro. FuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckFuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckFuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckFuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck.  Gerald WL  07:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad disruption
Ian, if you see further disruption on Talk:Muhammad, like this edit you reverted, just block the IP for 3 months for block evasion. I've done it twice now. I don't know if it's sockpuppetry or the same guy hopping around widely varying IP addresses. I'm willing to do the whack-a-mole thing for a while but if it lasts another week I'm inclined to semi-protect the talk page, which wouldn't be good because most of the discussion there is initiated by anonymous or unconfirmed editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already blocked the range. One prior edit on the range is clearly WP:VXFC. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know, but there have been others outside the range adding the same content: and . I suspect we'll see more. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Harrasment
This user asked me strange questions about my beliefs on the Holocaust and 9/11. Two extremely disturbing parts of humanity that I would rather not discuss with strangers?

I do not understand why he would do so? I would like an explanation, and I am curious as to if this type of thing is normal on wikipedia? NateDyer (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly called Wikipedia a propaganda outlet, apparently out of some conspiracy theorist belief that the US gov't (and not, ultimately, Osama bin Laden) was behind the attacks. You have also made incorrect (if not false) claims that a citation did not support a statement about Nazis sending people to concentration camps (when that statement was almost a paraphrase of the citation) before going on to concur with an apparent Holocaust denier.
 * You were already waving your dick around on those topics, don't pretend you are uncomfortable talking about them. I asked you those questions so that you could clear the air regarding your actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

NLT?
FYI. They've self-reverted... but I'm not sure if I should still open an ANI? —Melbourne<b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've already opened a discussion on ANI, so I've commented re the LT. Kind regards, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Bcliot33
Interesting. A sock comes out of the woodwork to promote Julius Evola. You characterized the baron as a fascist mystic, and I sort of wish I had used that phrase previously, but he was a fascist mystic who frightened some of Mussolini's hangers-on because he really was a fascist mystic, and they were just hangers-on to a ruler. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As a Christian humanist who has read Crowley and Howard; and who keeps the Quran, the Book of Mormon, a few Faust books on my physical shelf, I fully appreciate not jumping to conclusions on a person's ideology from what they read. That said, Evola one of the few authors whose readers I become immediately wary of.
 * Evola has had his hangers-on carry him into the modern era -- including a (since tossed) hanger-on to another would-be autocrat. Interesting how both groups of followers use the same tactics of pretending their hero didn't say something, or that it wasn't meant that way, or that we only pretending to disagree because we hate their hero.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You probably know that I wasn't referring to Evola as a hanger-on. And Mussolini wasn't a would-be autocrat, because he was the real thing.  In my opinion, Mussolini made one major blunder.  (Being an autocrat is not a blunder but a wrong choice.)  That was allying himself with Hitler.  If he had remained neutral, then he might have received a state funeral in 1971 with Paul VI and King Umberto officiating.  But isn't the now-tossed hanger-on to whom you refer someone who was arrested on a yacht recently for a weird scheme to steal money by building a fence?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I caught that. And yes, you've figured out who I was calling a hanger-on (and hanging on to a leader who similarly isn't doing enough to distance himself from Nazis). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Curious why you left a Discretionary sanctions notification on my talk page 15:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC). I would expect Wikipedia has a way for you to indicate what instigated your action here but no indication. I suspect my suggestions/comments I made on article talk pages are the offending posts. Notice my posts are my best effort to determine how I may most productively contribute, and I'm not seeing a more viable way to contribute given my cost/benefit analysis of the options given my focus on the author's agenda in the context frame (defining the meaning) of the message as the primary issue in any communications. On a perhaps more general note I do notice Wikipedia's key concern about people posting without sources is woefully violated perhaps on a majority of content posted, for example this entire page [] is posted without source, suggesting that the author is the source of the entire article. Rtdrury (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Curious why you waited two years to ask me instead of doing so when I left the message. I would expect that you had read the part of the template that explicitly says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" but no indication.  I suspect that your contributions from around that time (probably this one or maybe this one) may have the answer. Notice that my post was my best effort to let you know.
 * Also, almost all articles have multiple authors, and you have just as much responsibility for cleaning up the site as anyone else. That said, you also have as much responsibility for avoiding commentary, for understanding what constitutes a reliable source (for example, RT is garbage propaganda full of conspiracy theories and other lies), for avoiding conspiracy theories, and for assuming that other members are here to help.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to post on my talk page
I'm reposting this here to make sure it's seen

What kind of explanation is the one you gave me? What kind of mental gymnastics? No one said anything about the race of people involved - Minneapolis burned down. Stores were looted. It occurred in multiple cities. These "protests" have a body count. To say it is anything but a riot is a laughable lie and a leftist delusion contradicted by endless, plentiful, apocalyptic video evidence of stores being looted, buildings being burned, dead bodies laying in the streets, and girls screaming to cameras that "protestors shot her sister". What you mean by "you need better personal news sources" is "ones that I agree with, as a leftist". You're trying to shirk responsibility, as a leftist, for riots and violence. Stop throwing around the "white supremacist/fascist" ad-hominem. Black people rioted. White people rioted. People were condemning rioting. How on earth am I supposed to respond to this? This is an utter deflection. To impugn that anyone who speaks out against rioting is a racist fascist is tyrannical in itself, censorious, creepy, and deluded. Tyrolian859 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're putting property damage over the police shrugging at their own members murdering people.
 * Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or troll? Because this shit says the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Exposing what "wikipedians" are really about
your statement here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1079#how_to_deal_with_false_accusations_in_deletion_suggestion_page?

"...If I cared more, I would !vote "delete" just to spite the people making a mess of that page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)"

is disgusting and truly exposes what wikipedia is all about. see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source-of-inspiration (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of whining about sour grapes over the article being deleted even after one of the "keep" voters contacted friends on another site, how about doing a proper job of writing the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael John Nicholson
Blocked user sent me an email with a link to his website. No big deal, but you may want to revoke his "Email this user" access if possible. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 08:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why argue?
What's the point of arguing at User talk:Meieet? --JBL (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Tell us about your experiences editing the English Wikipedia!
Hi!

I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.

This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on the Alien Abduction article talk page. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.

Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone.

Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.

If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.

via Email: tbipat@uw.edu or English Wikipedia: tbipat Tbipat (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine People "Hoax"
Hello Ian, you shut down the discussion at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally because you (correctly) identified that the discussion was not leading anywhere and no constructive suggestions were proposed. I'm fine with that. However, in your closing remarks you mention several positions that the context suggests you attribute to me (maybe I'm misreading things). I do not have the opportunity to rebut these accusations on the talk page because that section is now (rightly) closed. Nevertheless I have a right to correct the accusations so please allow me to do so here.

1. You claim that I pretend that "nobody at the rally" saw the large group of Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us." I never said anything like this. I agree that this is well documented by reliable sources! It is a total hallucination, a fabrication, that I claimed anything of the sort.

2. You write that I'm "pretending that anyone who did due diligence in learning anything about the rally before commenting on it could have not known it was full of white supremacists." I never said that or even implied it. I agree that it is well documented by reliable sources that the rally was dominated by white supremacists. I do not dispute this at all.

3. You claim that I'm "pretending that a condemnation of "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides" is somehow an explicit condemnation of white supremacists (and yet paradoxically not an acknowledgement one side was solidly white supremacist)." I never claimed that either. This is a strawman.

Please delete the above claims that because they totally misrepresent my position. Your preceding comments and justification for closing the discussion are fine. Pakbelang (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. You kept trying to excuse people who marched with Nazis with statements like "assuming one knew they were Nazis" and "not everyone who attended the rally knew in advance that it would be filled with Nazis," since you needed to excuse them to justify excusing Trump's "very fine people" remarks, which you started off doing by citing a source so obviously unreliable that you should have stopped editing pages (not just articles but also talk pages) relating to American politics right then and there. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ian, yes, the two quotations you attribute to me here are correct and I take note of your opinion. But the three allegations on the article's talk page (listed above) are false. Please delete them so we can put an end to this matter. --Pakbelang (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are entirely responsible for continuing this matter, you end it. This matter should have ended when it was pointed out that the article already cites reliable sources regarding Trump supporters' views on the "fine people" comment.  This matter should have ended when it was pointed out that we don't need to cite "pro-Trump" sources.  This matter should have ended when your gross incompetence in finding reliable sources was pointed out.  You end the matter by leaving my talk page and not coming back. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please retract your three baseless allegations. You have the right to not to respond to the questions I raised but you have no right to make false allegations against me and then immediately close the discussion, shutting off my right to reply there. I am left with few options but to reply here. --Pakbelang (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who closed the discussion. Anyone who knows the basics of Wikipedia would have checked the page history before accusing me of closing the discussion.
 * You do not have the "right to reply" on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for wrongly accusing you of closing the discussion, I jumped to the conclusion without checking the page history. Also, thanks for the WP:FREESPEECH link. I consider your three allegations (above) to be defamatory and, as per WP policies on libel ("Delete libelous material when it has been identified"), on personal attacks and casting aspersions, I request that you delete them.Pakbelang (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:No legal threats. You are not the subject of a biography.  If your username in anyway identifies who you are offline, that's your fault.  You disagree with my blunt assessment of you excusing people who marched with Nazis, because you've never had a legitimate point and just want to "win."  Get over it and leave my talk page alone.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When did I make a legal threat? Just because I consider your comments to be defamatory doesn't mean that I intend to take legal action – I confirm I have no such intention. I am open about my real name on my user page but I respect WP's policy on legal threats. In terms of my desire to "win" any substantive argument related to the article in question, I think you're mistaken. My comments on the talk page were related to sourcing, it was you who started on the soapboxing. Such substantive comments (along the lines which you just repeated) would be inappropriate. I take them as a personal attack and, if they needed to be made at all, they should have been made on my talk page or here, and not on the article's talk page.--Pakbelang (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The entire point of calling something libel is to give it the air of legal weight. For the last time, drop it. You knew nothing about the topic and still know nothing about how things work here, and have decided to post pointless rants instead of accepting that you don't have a point. For the last time, stop and leave my talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
A goat for you!

OverArmour (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Yo Ho Ho
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Brad
Sockpuppet investigations/Brad Watson, Miami. If you can also comment it would be appreciated. I'm a bit embarrassed he's gotten away with so much. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there's some good CU evidence and some signs that maybe Brad's finally on some medication, I cannot see how ZenMechanics is Brad. And yeah, sorry, I haven't been patrolling my watchlist all that much the past couple months.  Don't feel like I'm accomplishing as much with this year's kids as last year's (last year, all but two kids could identify every letter in the alphabet and a couple were even reading three-letter words but about half of this year's kids only know ABC as words in a song), so once I get home I pretty much open a Chūhai and YouTube.  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, he's not Brad. Must be pretty frustrating not making the same progress as before. Doug Weller  talk 11:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fountain-Fort Carson High School
Ian,

David KeAli'iHo'omalu Arruda was part of the Battlebots T.V. show for 18 years. He had an Anime Reaction YouTube channel with over 11,000 subscribers. He was on his way to Japan to go to University there and teach ESL to children.

I'm his mother. He passed away April 28th, 2021.

If you needed an "ad" to verify info, why didn't you ask me? Callously taking down a notable former FFCHD person without informing the author was cruel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susie_Betancur (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry to hear that, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and Wikipedia has a very specific meaning for the word "notable" that is different from how you are imagining the term is being used.
 * Ads don't verify anything and are not how things work here.
 * At the top of the edit window, it says "Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I upload video of David on TV with his robot battles? He helped Grant Imahara, (of Myth Busters, R2-D2 and Baby Yoda fame), In 2000, Imahara also competed in Comedy Central's BattleBots with a robot he built himself called "Deadblow" that won two Middleweight Rumbles, was the first season's Middleweight runner-up and became the third season's first-ranked robot. They were friends and robot builders together. David bought Slap'em Silly which got 6th place at Battlebots. Susie Betancur (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The videos are not independent sources. It's not proof of existence we're looking for, but sources completely independent of him but still specifically about him.  That means an entry on a BattleBots website wouldn't work either.  Things like newspaper or magazine articles are what's needed.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI...
...I've filed an SPI regarding Schenkstroop‎ possibly being a sock of VeritasVox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello
How do you send a Wikipedia Question in Teahouse? And how do you reply in someone's talk page?

-XecityZaien (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

New Username
I've created an account at User:StarshipSLS! 64.121.103.144 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ian!
Please answer my question.

How do I upload my images? Thanks! (please don't mind the Z thing, thanks.) [Z] --XecityZaien (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Aphantasianetwork
Hi, you recently blocked User:Aphantasianetwork back in April 27 because of their promotional username. They are now back again under the account User:TotalAphantasic trying to push non-neutral edits to the Aphantasia article using 'Aphantasia Network' as a source. Should the account be blocked again for non-neutral POV, COI editing? Some1 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Response from User:TotalAphantasic
See response in User_talk:TotalAphantasic, the source I added was indeed published at aphantasia.com, but that is because scientists reach out to publish articles to the network. We share expert opinions on a topic that receives little publicity given it has only been a published area of research for 5 years. In February we released an AMA with Joel Pearson. In two weeks we host an AMA with Adam Zeman. I volunteer for the network, like the other ~20 aphantasics and researchers. If I cannot add something from aphantasia.com, that's fine. There just aren't a lot of other sources at this point, other than primary sources and the articles/videos already cited. TotalAphantasic (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC).


 * If I had arrived at this message when it was fresh, I would block your account under WP:NOSHARE since you're still saying "we" and still clearly engaged in promotional editing. I suspect you've given up but if you return,  you should limit your activity at Aphantasia to edit requests at Talk:Aphantasia.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary 6
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Shem HaMephorash has an RFC
Shem HaMephorash has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)