Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ian.thomson: Difference between revisions

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Ian.thomson

Final (139/9/3); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 03:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) – Ian.thomson has been an editor since 2006 and has chalked up a great deal of experience in multiple areas of Wikipedia. His good work includes but is not limited to helping with the admin noticeboards, the help and reference desks, and sockpuppet investigations. He knows what he is doing and has a firm grasp of our policies and guidelines. As an excellent collaborator, he communicates well with others while being polite, helpful, and clueful. In confrontations he has been thick-skinned and resilient, letting things roll off of his back which allows him to remain calm and cool. He has been trusted with reviewer and rollbacker permissions for five years without any abuse of these privileges. I believe that the community already trusts him and would be best served if Ian were made an administrator so that he may lend a hand in mopping up some of our messes. I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Co nomination

I offered to nominate Ian a while back and then completely forgot about it; my thanks to the courtesy of Berean Hunter in allowing me to meet my commitment and co-nominate. To address one thing - Ian has an historical block from 2011. The discussion here I trust will assure the community that Ian understood the reason for the block and clearly learnt from it. Moving on, as noted above Ian is a tenured Wikipedian (since 2006) with the skills and level headedness to make a great admin. Consistently active and helpful, Ian regularly adds value whilst avoiding the drama fests. I think we'd be doing ourselves a favour by giving him the tools. Pedro :  Chat  13:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am willing to be an administrator. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: In particular, keeping WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, and WP:SPI clear whenever I'm logged on (not blocking or locking anything that shows up, but double checking first). I already keep multiple Wikipedia (or WP-related) tabs open whenever I'm on, three more won't hurt. I would also try to get any clear-cut cases at WP:ANEW out of the way, working my way into less obvious cases as I gain more experience. New page patrol also needs some work. I would probably start off just deleting anything I can't find any sources on (even questionable ones), but would try to cite a couple of sources to establish notability where possible. There's also a refdesk troll and a few LTAs I could help hammer down quickly and quietly.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As stated on my user page, I've either created, recreated, or almost completely rewritten Arbatel de magia veterum, Debtera, Idealism (Christian eschatology), Lesser Key of Solomon, Liber Officium Spirituum, Livre des Esperitz, Magical Treatise of Solomon, Reuben Swinburne Clymer, Shemhamphorash, and this article about some conspiracy theorist garbage. I'm also working on overhauls relating to Goetia and Enochian magic. This focus would not reflect my administrative activities, as the Google-fu and library work I used on those articles also to establish notability on most topics older than a few years old.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Wikipedia usually provides stress relief for me, even if the only thing I do on a given day is keep article space clear of vandals and less-reality-oriented users.* Trying to remember events I considered conflict (but not necessarily stressful), the other party usually ended up blocked or banned,** only a few times did neutral parties raise the possibility of just warning me, and such cases were a long time ago. In those cases or any other cases where one could become emotional (not necessarily me), I try to channel my inner Vogon (unless it would do more harm than good, such as with new users), focus on article content, and try to comment on actions or behavior only if they could affect article content in some way. There is the aforementioned block from years ago, but that article hasn't been on watchlist for a long time, I'm no longer enrolled in that class (or any class), I avoid Wikipedia when certain types of life stresses come up (the relationship I was in at the time was ending), and I only go beyond 3rr in cases of vandalism.***

^{*e.g. psychics, racial supremacists, wizards, the second coming of Jesus (all of them), alien abductees, anyone who knows what (the Illuminati/Big Pharma/FEMA/Obama/the Pope) is really up to, anyone who knows for sure whatever we're supposed to believe about God, etc. I also treat users I happen to agree with in a similar fashion if they're actually advocating a position instead of just neutrally summarizing WP:RSs that explain them.}

^{**I would avoid blocking anyone who even annoys me (except in "straightforward cases") to prevent abuse.}

^{***Again, only in straightforward cases would I use admin tools, otherwise I would file an ANEW report.}

Additional question from Jim Carter

4. Hello Ian.thomson, thank you for volunteering. I just want to ask you, so far, how many articles you have started? And among them, which is your proudest? Thank you and all the best!

A: According to this page (and ignoring redirects and pages I moved for users who could not start pages), in chronological order: Barbarous name, John Todd (conspiracy theorist) (although that was a recreation of a previously deleted article, so I'm hesitant to count that), Debtera, Magical Treatise of Solomon, Livre des Esperitz, Liber Officium Spirituum, and Monomoiria. I'll admit that it's not that many, but many of the articles I rewrote were effectively from scratch. Debtera is probably the best article I've done, though that's had more (quite welcome) help and collaboration. MToS and LOS are probably the most representative of what happens when the only other edits are aesthetic instead of content related.

Additional question from The ed17

5. Why the long delay between nominations and transcluding? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A (in summary): My uncle was in the hospital a lot and I moved to Hangzhou.

A (in detail): When the nominations first started, my uncle didn't need surgery and my only concern about my current job was getting it. In the following few months, my uncle was in and out of the hospital for multiple surgeries, and my mother and I were usually the only family available to travel to keep an eye on him. In addition to that, I had to get a work permit (the Chinese government counted my time here as work experience, btw), go to DC to get a visa, get over a case of shingles (a week in bed), pack and ship my luggage, book and catch four flights, and go through a bunch of red tape to ensure that the government won't quarantine or deport me. Oh, and there were a few days where I had only a couple hundred RMB (say, 30 US bucks) to my name (which made eating fun). Thankfully, the only things on my plate now are this and copying student info to my computer. After this week, my only non-WP obligation is teaching my native language for 16 hours a week (which I'm trained enough to do competently even without a lesson plan and half hungover). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

... I think those are pretty good reasons. No worries though, I was simply curious, and I thought others would be too. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Jim Carter

6. Hi again, thanks for answering my question. I was about to support, when I felt something needs a bit of clarification. On 22 June, you have requested speedy deletion (G5) of Russell K. Hotzler, here. You mentioned that it was created by indef blocked user, Mangoeater1000, however, it was created by another editor, Winonaburly, here. Even, Winonaurly didn't appear related to the User:Mangoeater1000 account. The account is not mentioned on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mangoeater1000 nor it is mentioned here. User:Winonaurly account is not even blocked or banned. Then what made you tag that article with G5? Please clarify, I'm at my wit's end. Thank you.

A: See Special:Contributions/Winonaburly and their block log. The block reason given by DoRD on 6 June was "{{checkuserblock-account}} Mangoeater1000." If it is not displaying properly, try purging the cache.

Wait, I see the problem: Winonaurly (without a B) is not a registered account. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from Oshwah

7. What is the actual difference between Substitution and Transclusion?

A: Never consciously thought about it, but the impression I've had was that substitution actually copies the text to the page, while transclusion only displays the text. For example, if I subst a warning template to a vandal's talk page, further changes to the original warning template will not affect what is on the vandal's talk page. However, when I transcluded this RfA to the main RfA page, editing this page will further affect the main RfA page.

8. You indicated that you want to work in RFPP. When should you apply Pending-changes protection to an article instead of Semi-protection? When would you apply Full protection to an article instead of Semi-protection or Pending-changes protection?

A: I would apply Pending Changes to articles that have long term vandalism but still a lot of good anonymous edits, and semi-protection to articles that are suffering from an unusually high number of unconfirmed or unregistered vandals but are usually safe. I would apply full protection to stop disputes on articles that are suffering from sockpuppetry or other problems involving confirmed accounts, and as rarely and as shortly as possible.

9. You're reviewing an AIV for an account that has made four edits. The first edit added "HI" to the middle of an article without an edit summary. The second edit removed the birth date from Rob Thomas (musician) with the edit summary "No source cited!". The third edit replaced an entire article with "TEST DOES THIS THING WORK?" with no edit summary. The fourth edit blanked Jimbo Wales' user page with no edit summary. All of the edits made were reverted and warnings left for vandalism. What do you do with this AIV report? What message would you leave on this account's talk page?

A: The Rob Thomas edit technically isn't vandalism, but I can understand why the warning was left. Depending who left that warning, I might discuss that with them. If the warner is new, I'll be more likely to explain WP:NOTVAND. If I recognize their name more easily than User:Jimbo Wales, then I might ask them if there's info about the reported account that I'm not aware of (for example, if it's a sock of an LTA I don't know about). The Jimbo Wales edit is technically vandalism, but it's possible to imagine they read the "you can edit this page" bit and didn't understand that blanking it was considered bad form. I would leave a note on AIV that the account hasn't reached their final warning yet but that I'll keep an eye on them, and leave a handwritten note on the reported account's talk page asking them to use the sandbox for test edits, letting them know about WP:CITE and WP:BLP (since their edit to Rob Thomas were in the spirit of those pages), and encouraging them to make sure that any information in the lede and infobox is not sourced later on in the article before removing it (as in the case of Rob Thomas, this source in the Early Life section supports the birth date).

10. In what situations is it appropriate to block an account that has made no edits or contributions to Wikipedia?

A: If it's an obvious sock accounts, or their username indicate that they're going to be a vandalism-only or troll account. For example, a blocked user name with numbers tacked on the end, or a username insulting existing editors. Names insulting Wikipedia in general may not be proper vandals or trolls: they could just be a WP:NOTHERE account, which would require them to make edits to establish.

11. What is your view of Process is important?

A: It is the counterbalance to WP:SNOW. Both have their uses and dangers, and either (or some middle ground) should only be used to the benefit of the site. Process should be ignored when it's being used in bad faith, but it should be followed when consensus is not completely obvious. WP:SNOW isn't an excuse to skip process just because it might change consensus, just as WP:PI isn't an excuse to try to fix what isn't broken.

Additional question from MONGO

12. Do you believe that there is any supporting evidence that most world leaders, famous people or the fabulously wealthy are actually nonhuman Reptilians?

A: As much as I'd like to joke about not being sure about (insert GOP candidate here), I cannot think of a reason to believe in the existence of reptilians, nor do I know of an adequate explanation for how they'd get around problems of disguising themselves as humans. In short, no. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Northamerica1000

13. In your answer to question #1 regarding New page patrolling, you stated "I would probably start off just deleting anything I can't find any sources on (even questionable ones)..." (et al.) Do you feel that unilateral deletion would be the best way to deal with such matters, or would it be more functional to first prod or nominate an article for speedy deletion and notify the article creator? Also in this context, what do you specifically mean in stating "even questionable ones"?

A: I'm sorry that wasn't clearer. If I can't find any sources whatsoever about the article subject at all (e.g. harpelincanogosh), then I'm probably going to just delete it (though notifying the user). If there are any sources or potential sources (even something that doesn't meet WP:RS, such as a garage band's Myspace page), I'm not going to delete it on the spot but wait for the appropriate deletion process to go through first. Anyone can speedy or prod articles (and I would continue to do that as an admin), but not everyone can delete articles that have already been tagged for deletion. That latter part is what I was focusing on in question 1. Does that help? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify for @Ritchie333: what I mean by "If I can't find any sources whatsoever": I usually check Google books and Google news for about five pages of results each (if there are that many results), then Google in general for three pages (again, if there's that many). If the article is interesting or the subject sounds plausible enough, I might check up to ten results pages in books and news, and five pages in general results. University of Michigan Men's Glee Club has plenty of stuff that I'd've found. Checking for Ika Hügel-Marshall on just Google books, I see several books on the first that discuss her directly enough to give the impression that there would be comprehensive sources specifically about her. The article on her does have me planning to nab a JSTOR account next time they're handing them out for us. If Google Books is uncooperative, then I'll check archive.org. If that fails, then I check with some friends who are good about getting me books. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from Oshwah

14. What sort of things constitute a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you explain what "claim of significance" means, and give some examples of things that do or don't qualify?

A: While a lot of people (mis)use the general notability guideline (and I'll admit I've made that mistake in the past) as the standard for significance, and the scale is completely off, there is a facet of that direction that I think works: could the subject have potentially affected the world beyond itself in any noteworthy way? Rather than "has someone unaffiliated with the subject written about it?" the appropriate question to ask is "does this article claim something about the subject that could cause someone unaffiliated to write about it (assuming its claims are factual)?" My cat fails this test. A garage band that is still looking for a drummer would probably fail it. A local band that fails WP:GNG probably passes, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

15. As an admin, you are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?

A: Double check the first few pages of Google news, Google books, then Google for the organization and then the same for the event name. If enough sources exist to establish notability for either, refocus the article more on whichever there are more sources for. If there are sources about the event, but not enough for a stand alone article per WP:EVENT, then I'd copy the material (with attribution and sourcing) to the talk page for the article on the major US city to let them decide if it should be incorporated into that article or a related established article. If no sources exist, delete the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

16. Can you provide me with some diffs of you tagging articles for CSD?

A: Er, sorry. Since I don't have access to deleted articles, the best I can really do is point to my CSD log. I will note that some of the blue links there were recreations. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from Reyk

17. Under what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate to block an editor for not answering a question put to them on their talk page?

A: I'm really having trouble thinking of anything. The only I could begin to think of is if the user was clearly aware of the question, and it was meant to direct them away from an article that was part of a topic ban or something, but that would still be for violating the topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

18. I think it's fair to say you do quite a bit of editing on contentious articles, and understandably you've generated some flak for it (eg: here, here) while more or less keeping a cool head. Although you don't plan to charge head-first into dispute resolution, do you have a long-term plan to spend more time resolving quarrels on ANI in an administrative capacity? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A: If I was handed one of the messier disputes right now, I would try to keep everything focused on (ultimately) WP:V and WP:NPA. I suppose I'd try to assume that both of them have a point and that there's some sort of common ground that they're just not aware of yet, and see if I help them figure out what it is. If that doesn't work, I'll assume that both of them are wrong in some way (but still acting in good faith) and try to help them figure out what they need to do to end the current argument (while giving the articles' quality precedence over their feelings) and what they need to do to stay away from each other. This is assuming it does not become apparent that one side clearly is doing something they're not supposed to and the other is just frazzled from dealing with that problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

19. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: I know that sometimes A7 gets used as a WP:SNOW version of an AfD nomination based on the notability guidelines, and I understand that that's incorrect, but also understand why it's done. The more possible it seems that the subject could be article-worthy (something like a town hero, or a terrorist attack, or a common tool), then I'm more likely to be literal with the CSD criteria. The less likely something is to ever be article-worthy (something like an article on someone's new puppies, or a family recipe), then I'm more likely to be open to the spirit (rather than the letter) of the speedy deletion criteria. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

20. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: I think IAR applies to itself: it should only be used for the benefit of the site. In the case of administrative actions, it's best to have some justification before taking any action. But IAR potentially be a justification for administrative inaction (that is, if something can be resolved without admin tools, do it that way). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

21. In your response to question 13 above, you implied that you would speedy delete pages not tagged, rather than tagging them for another admin. Would you do that routinely? if not, in what sorts of cases would you do so?

A: If I were to point to specific CSD criteria, then I would probably delete articles instead of tagging them for G1, G3, G5, G10, and A11. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

22. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: My responsibility would be to make sure that article quality remains good and that users operate with as little drama as possible. New users should be encouraged to be bold, even if that boldness has to manifest through other users. Suggestions regarding policies, guidelines, and formatting should be framed as ways to avoid getting involved in drama. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

;Additional question from SSTflyer

23. You mentioned that you would delete anything that you cannot find any source on. Would Internet censorship in China affect your ability in finding sources?

A: Never mind. The answer to question 21 is sufficient. sst✈ 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Although this question has been withdrawn, I would like to explain that I've got multiple VPNs with servers around the world, one of which can't be blocked without shutting down HTTPS for all of China. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Liz

24. You've received quite a lot of questions for a recently opened RfA but I have one more (sorry!). I'd like you to elaborate on Question 3. You imply when you've been a dispute with another editor, the other party usually ended up blocked or banned.

But the question isn't meant for you to demonstrate that you are usually correct in disputes. Ideally, it's an opportunity for you to show how adeptly you handle conflict. So, can you recall one or more specific instances where you were in a conflict with another editor, that didn't result in a blocked or banned editor, but where you found a way to resolve a dispute, amicably? Because, one of the most important skills an administrator has is not using the block button but the ability to defuse tense situations where there is a dispute between editors. You can expect to find yourself in the midst of conflict, so how do you handle it? Thank you.

A: I try to stick to content (and if the issue isn't content, the behavior rather than the person acting it out), and I don't mind incorporating new content as long as it's reliably sourced and given due weight. As long as the other person is willing to try to find sources and willing to acknowledge that there's give-and-take (or more positively, collaboration), I try to assume the material is meant to improve the site. That's why I can't really recall many instances where things got tense (except where someone got blocked), and am sometimes confused when I see comments here along the lines of "I've been on the opposite side of an argument from Ian, but..." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from JustBerry

25. The following comment has been made about your editing on Wikipedia: "As he's made hundreds of edits to articles like Jesus, God, Abraham, Lucifer, &c., I get the impression that he's somewhat tendentious about religious topics." How would you respond? Please note that I do not endorse the quoted statement.

A: As anyone who has worked with me can say, that has little to no bearing on reality whatsoever. I've fought against Islamophobic POV pushers, tried to refocus the Christ Myth Theory article to its academic supporters, and plenty more. With the exception of Idealism (Christian eschatology) and to a very limited extent Debtera, the articles I listed all deal with topics that I consider outside of my belief system. Outside of the Apostles' Creed (which I consider subjective and not objective, and I understand that a lot of people do not accept), my worldview is closer to what many would call secular humanism -- rather hard to be tendentious about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I could add that my activity here got me a work permit in the People's Republic of China. My previous application (which did not have Wikipedia listed) did not go through, so it was my activity here made the difference. I think that it might be relevant to point out that the PRC does not think I might be a missionary (because I'm not a missionary), and they know about my work on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

26. Can you explain your block log and SPI case involving block evasion here, which you appeared to be involved with? Please note that it is understood that the block log and SPI case reflect events from 2011 and will not be held against you necessarily. Just trying to find out what happened there.

A: Huh, I don't think I remember that SPI. As I mentioned earlier, I was enrolled in a class at the time, and it was a karate class. The teacher was using the article as part of the curriculum. Until about a month ago (before the move), I had a static IP (which I can still access through a VPN if anyone wants to do a CU), which is different from the one in the SPI. I don't know who that IP was, and I don't think I mentioned the block to anyone in the class (because between that and my then-girlfriend breaking up with me I really didn't want to talk to anyone in real life outside my D&D group) -- but it's still reasonable enough that someone in that class could've checked the article history.

As I also said earlier, I've learned to avoid Wikipedia when I'm going through particularly tough patches like that (which is why I edited very little while working in retail). I'm also not enrolled in any courses (the opposite, I'm now teaching them). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Seeking clarification: You start your answer with "I don't think I remember that SPI." If you were using a VPN, you should have been fully conscious of your using of the VPN. In that case, why would your school IP be associated with the account? Even if you suppose that the VPN was turned off and on, hence the logging of both IPs under your account, the rationale of "I don't think I mentioned the block to anyone in the class" seems to suggest that you were aware of the block, and in turn, the SPI case. --JustBerry (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: - Wow, that's all mixed up, I'll straighten it out:

Back when that block occurred, I did not have a VPN of any kind because I did not need one. I was living with my parents while attending college. I was editing from my (then) home when the block occurred. My school's IP wouldn't factor into this. It's pretty much impossible to unaware of a block, but it's very easy to be unaware of an SPI when no one notified me of it (especially since this happened before we had the notification tab at the top of the page, and also because, being blocked, I had no reason to visit any non-article page but my user talk page).

Fast forward to this year, and I made (and carried out) plans to move to China. Over the past few months, I installed some VPNs to get around the Great Firewall, one of which connects to a computer at my parent's house (i.e. what was my home during the time I was blocked). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: That did offer some clarification as far as the SPI goes. Would you mind clarifying why exactly you got blocked? It appears that since your school's IP wouldn't factor into this, you were responsible for the block, if I'm not mistaken, i.e. since you were presumably editing from a home or personal network of some sort. --JustBerry (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I was blocked for reverting poorly sourced original research more than three times in 24 hours at Karate. As I explained earlier, I'm no longer taking that class, I avoid Wikipedia when I'm going to comparable real-life stresses, etc. As was discussed here (which one of my nominators saw as a sign that I've learned from the block) I've held back such since then that I've only received a single unofficial reminder in the following years. (And the unofficial reminder was along the lines of "if the other guy hadn't been blocked...")

And to the best of my knowledge, an unblocked account can log in through a blocked IP address and still edit, though the other way around (a block account logging into an unblocked IP) would cause the IP to become temporarily blocked as well. At least, that's the impression I've gotten watching blocked kids complain about us "blocking" their friend's computers because they tried to sneak in from there; and logging out of public wifis to find messages meant for another user at that IP address. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Quite frankly, whether you caught on or not, you have to understand that this question is coming from a user with a block log themselves. Admittedly, I was testing you. Since this RfA is not about me, I'm not going to get into that; however, I will say that the blocks were not all intended at me, rather the blocks were a result of me being on the same network as other disruptive editors. Speaking from experience, it takes a certain level of diplomacy, calm, and experience to explain one's block log clearly. It doesn't matter whether you've been blocked or not; it matters (a) how you learned from that experience and (b) what your side of the story is, that is, if you're being genuine about it. Looking at the other aspects of your candidacy, i.e. your contributions, experience, etc., you seem well-fitted to become an administrator. I wish you all the best in the remainder of your candidacy and hope that my question will clarify any doubts that readers may have had about your block log. --JustBerry (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

27. Your user page advocates "When in doubt ... Do what Jack Churchill would do. If that doesn't or will not work, do what Hunter S. Thompson would do." What does this mean? Would you be a "gonzo admin"?

A: It's more advice to be bold in editing, ignore any rule that doesn't help the encyclopedia, and not be one of the inspirations for the humor essay WP:THETRUTH. If I had gonzo tendencies, they would've shown up in Liber Officium Spirituum and Magical Treatise of Solomon (two articles that, except for formatting, are pretty much just my work). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from BMK

28. Please be straight-forward and truthful to the Wikipedia community about the nature of your interactions and relationship with User:Ceoil. Did you suggest or encourage that user to "follow" Andrew D. to AfD in order to "contradict" and "insult" him, as Andrew D. implies in this discussion? Is Ceoil on your payroll, or employed by a shell company which you control? Please come clean, Wikipedia must at all costs be protected from the scourge of gonzo.

A: I'm pretty sure I've seen Ceoil at ANI, but I think it was a while ago and I can't remember what for (no caffeine yet). WP:AGF might be relevant reading. Also, WP:NPA counts accusations that lack evidence. Not saying that that applies to your question, necessarily. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Cordless Larry

29. In December 2014, requests for comment on user conduct were closed down, and editors directed to other dispute resolution processes instead. Do you think the current processes available for dealing with complaints about editors are sufficient and effective?

A: I think it was a good idea to drop the phrase "user conduct," as that was more likely to be read as "the user exhibiting this behavior" rather than "the behavior exhibited by some user." Effectively folding RFCU into ANI made sense on the grounds that it saved users some time, a lot of people were going there first anyway, and the final decisions have teeth (although it was simple enough to point to the RFCU thread in ANI later and say "we know this is a problem and it won't stop"). However (and my memory could be wrong on this, haven't had my caffeine yet), ANI seems to have grown twice as large since then (moreso it should have from than handling new RFCU jobs). The only thing I could think of to fix that (if the community decided it needed fixing) would be to reopen the RFCU (perhaps under a different name). I'm not going to push for (or against) that, though.

In short: Either option could be made to work, though the current situation is a touch more streamlined and centralized.

Additional question from Rubbish computer

30. You log onto AIV and see there is a slight backlog. There are 7 reports there, all from different users. Some of the reports are valid, some need directing elsewhere, and some do not require administrator attention at all. How would you respond to each of these?

User:4Funn5 – Vandalized an article.

User:SomeUser44 – Vandalism after final warning. (8 mins ago)

IP:1.23456789.12 – Called me an idiot on my user talk and told me to shut up.

User:U wot m88884 – Vandalism after final warning. (9 hours ago)

User:$$£$YEPP – Admits to editing with a conflict of interest for cash.

User:Hi98 – Edit warring.

User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. – Blatant violation of the username policy. (Has not edited yet)

A: It's been a really long day, so if I accidentally missed one, please point it out for me.

User:4Funn5 – Warn 4Funn5 and explain to the reporter that vandals need to be sufficiently warned.

User:SomeUser44 – Block. If their only contributions are vandalism, block indefinitely.

IP:1.23456789.12 – Warn the IP, check into their contribs and those of the reporter to see if there's anything that needs ironing out, explain to reporter that a single insult isn't enough to warrant an AIV report (and that it should probably go to ANI at any rate).

User:U wot m88884 – If their only other edits are vandalism, block indefinitely. If their other activity is not vandalism, mark as stale.

User:$$£$YEPP – Make sure $$£$YEPP's not another Orangemoody account. If $$£$YEPP is, indefinite block. If $$£$YEPP is not Orangemoody but has mostly COI edits, block. If they have more non-COI edits than COI edits, explain WP:FCOI to them, ask them to read it on their own, tell them (not just ask, tell) to not edit the relevant article(s) anymore, undo their edits to said article(s), and raise the issue at WP:ANI. If they edit the article again after that, block.

User:Hi98 – Depends on how bad the edit warring was, what it was over, and whether or not there's already an ANEW discussion. At best (for User:Hi98), I'm just going to file a report at WP:ANEW and notify Hi98 and the reporter. At worst, if Hi98 is continuing to revert despite final warnings and an existing ANEW discussion, I'll go on and block him (temporarily if it was an understandable content dispute, indefinitely if it was over something really crazy or stupid that they had been warned about by multiple editors). (And I mean really crazy or stupid, like adding "the moon landing was faked because jet fuel can't melt the Fed" to the article on Freemasonry).

User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. – Notify RCII about our username policy and provide them with instructions on how to change their name (blocking them if they start editing under that name). Explain to reporter that one should leave the coi-username template as a warning first, then go to WP:UAA

Additional question from Fylbecatulous

31. (In full disclosure I am a fan of Hunter S.) Following on from your "when in doubt" section of your user page: Go on and assume I am the second coming of Jack Chick without viewing the evidence to the contrary on this page. What does this mean? And what evidence? Your userboxes or your resume? (The "mistake" you have linked goes to a disambiguation page, btw). Linking to Jack Chick in any context even as a "dare me to prove I am contrarian to that" is beyond the pale. Here is a quote from Chick's article: His comics have been described by Los Angeles magazine as "equal parts hate literature and fire-and-brimstone sermonizing"......Chick's company, Chick Publications, says it has sold over 750 million tracts, comics tracts and comic books, videos, books, and posters designed to promote Evangelical Protestantism from a Christian fundamentalist perspective or point of view. Many of these are controversial, as they accuse Roman Catholics, Freemasons, Muslims, Jews, and many other groups of murder and conspiracies, while Chick maintains his views are simply politically incorrect. I do not understand at all why there would even be such a "dare to compare". Fylbecatulous talk 16:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A: In the past, I've encountered users who tried to tell me that I couldn't really accept evolution, love Muslims, or do a lot of other things that I do all the time with no real difficulty. Even in this RfA, I've been falsely accused of tendentiously editing for religious purposes for a reason flimsier than wet tissue paper. That I would dare call myself liberal puts me and Jack Chick in opposite corners. That I list myself as an "anti-racist, anti-imperialist, pro-gay feminist" and "Zen Baptist" pretty much guarantees that Chick thinks I'm going to hell. If I were anything like Chick, my edits at Talk:Evolution, Talk:Freemasonry, and in Islam and Occultism related articles would not be welcome. Instead, my posts in those areas defend the status quo from zealots (or in the cast of Occultism, expand the encyclopedia). I'm not going to pretend that it's super common, or that it's specifically because of my beliefs, but it happens because Wikipedia is a large and diverse enough place that some bad eggs are bound to accuse anyone with a different belief system or lifestyle of being a fanatic regardless of actual behavior. The way to deal with that is not for everyone to leave their user pages blank, but to remind other editors that everyone is more than a stereotype.

In effect, it is no different than a Muslim editor with a userpage that supports globalism, modernity, and pacifism while saying "Go on and assume I'm a member of ISIS despite all the evidence to the contrary;" or an atheist editor with a userpage that expresses admiration for devout belief while saying "Go on and assume I'm Pol Pott despite all the evidence to the contrary."

I'm aware that "Go on and assume" links to the disambiguation page for "mistake." The link itself that was more important that what was linked to. I'm aware that one would never do that in an article, but outside of article space it's not a rare form of humor. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

...So, I am not reassured; you do tend to strongly express opinions in a way that may cause argument :(tendititious definition). Even your reply to me uses "Thems fighting words": Even in this RfA,...I've been falsely accused of tendentiously editing for religious purposes for a reason flimsier than wet tissue paper...(otay, meow). If your past here has been so contentious that you feel the need to challenge others thusly on your user page (who do not even know you), how can you be cool-tempered enough for an admin?. Please visit my user page User:Fylbecatulous which is highly personal and I challlenge you to find the most contentious item there. If it is anything other than the cartoon "Russia Hates Dogs", please let me know. That my page is peaceful does not mean I have not encountered abuse here. I just attempt to not return it... Fylbecatulous talk 18:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is not contentious that you mention that you are antitheist, it is not contentious that I mention my beliefs. There have been plenty of people, however, who have gone to my user page, seen that mention of belief, and concluded that any part of my disagreement with them stems from some imaginary fundamentalism instead of sourcing or policy. The statement is not made in anger, it is laughing off those who would make that mistake out of malice while deterring those who would make that mistake out of ignorance. It in no way abuses visitors to my talk page (except perhaps those who refuse to assume good faith), and is in no way a sign that I would return abuse. If you have real evidence that I would return abuse, or that I cannot keep a cool-temper, please present it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Supdiop

32. When a ip editor adds defamatory content on an article and an admin reverts it. Then ip also reverts 5 times and admin reverts 4 times (this happens within 3 minutes) while another editor posts an editwarring template on ip talk page. Admin mistakenly thought edits were vandalism. Another editor reports this incident on editwar notice board. What action(s) would you take, if any?

A: If by "defamatory," you mean that it violates WP:BLP (which is possible without being vandalism), then the admin is exempt under WP:NOT3RR. I'm assuming from your description that the IP was warned at some point before their fifth revert. If the edit warring warning was given before their fourth revert, or it's a static IP that's been warned about edit warring within the past year, or they received the warning at least a minute before they made the fifth revert, then I can assume they know what they're doing and block them (though the WP:3RRNB thread is good to have for record keeping). Now, if the warning was given within a minute of their fifth revert, there is the possibility that they did actually not receive the message until after saving the page for their fifth revert -- in this case I'd notify them of the 3RRNB discussion, revert them, block them for edit warring if they revert again, and otherwise put them on an informal 0rr restriction (i.e. they cannot make any reverts that do not fall under WP:NOT3RR) for at least the next 48 hours (putting the article on my watchlist and keeping their contributions open in a new browser tab).

There is the possibility of a dynamic IP being involved. Should the IP be dynamic, and should a second dynamic IP from roughly the same location restore the defamatory material, I will block both under the assumption that it's the same user and prepare to semi-protect the article. Should a second IP appear from a different location, then all I can do is semi-protect the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Rubbish computer

33. You log onto RPP and notice the following page protection requests. How would you react to each of these?

A town, somewhere – Full protection - Vandalized 128 times in the last hour.

Joe Bloggs, Sr. - Semi protection - Persistent edit warring between 14 users, most of them substantially experienced.

Green (color) - Semi protection - Got vandalized by 2 different IPs on the same day.

Crayons, Inc. - Creation protection - Unambiguous advertising speedy deleted 4 times in the past week, also no indication of notability.

Internet vandalism - Move protection - Has been moved without consensus.

Vfggfsaygtshbykags - Creation protection: why create this random string of letters? (Has never been created.)

Foo - Move protection - Persistent move warring between autoconfirmed users.

Graphic graphs- Semi protection - Vandalized by several IP-hopping vandals over the past month (but the two main contributors are IPs, who have reverted most of the vandalism before anyone else.)

A:

A town, somewhere – If it's 128 times in the past hour, I'm guessing it's being mobbed. If the vandalism is from IPs or new accounts (probably the case), semi-protection. If the vandalism is (God forbid) coming from a bunch of autoconfirmed accounts, full protection for an hour, repeating with increasing durations as necessary.

Joe Bloggs, Sr. - Full protection, semi is useless against autoconfirmed accounts.

Green (color) - No protection for now. Put it on my watchlist, keep the contributions pages of the two vandals open in new tabs, and treat it like an AIV report (warning if they haven't been warned, blocking if they've gone beyond their final warning).

Crayons, Inc. - I'm assuming from the phrasing that the deleting admins all investigated and could find no reason to believe the company will ever be notable, and that I have done likewise. If I am incorrect about that, please let me know. Depends on whether the page is being created by the same account or multiple accounts. If it's only being created by a single account, final warning about recreation. If the article is being created by multiple accounts (even if it's the same user, or more likely employee of the company), then creation protection.

Internet vandalism - Probably no action yet, unless there has been a clearly repeated and nigh-universal consensus to never move the page.

Vfggfsaygtshbykags - Maybe add to watch list, otherwise no action just yet. If KMFDM or Llanfairpwllgwyngyll can be articles, that might be too, someday. May do creation protection 'if and when it becomes a problem, but I'm not Tom Cruise.

Foo - Move protection at wherever it is when I find it (even if it's moved since seeing the report), go to the talk page and ask the move-warriors (or whoever) to show me the WP:COMMONNAME.

Graphic graphs - If it's an ongoing thing, then pending changes -- but leave a barnstar and a "handwritten" (i.e. non-template) note of thanks and rundown of the situation to the two good IPs and assure them that I will keep the article on my watchlist to approve their edits if someone else fails to do so.

Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Ian.thomson: Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ian.thomson can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support: no red flags on a cursory review. Answer to Q3 could be made slightly clearer, but overall I think the thrust is in the right direction. Net positive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   Reaffirming my support in the wake of the opposes below. I would like to caution Ian to think about context when considering deletion, as you are much less likely to find Google results about topics in non-English countries, but I believe his head is generally in the right space. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   Like - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Support. Ian is a trustworthy, knowledgeable, and mature editor. Even when we've disagreed, he's been civil and thoughtful enough that I at least considered his position. I encounter him more often at ANI than anywhere else, but his mainspace edits have always struck me as those of an editor interested in maintaining neutrality and avoiding bias. His edits to ANI are usually helpful rather than drama-enhancing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support: I have noticed him during his time, he is an absolutely mature editor. I do expect him to keep up the great work and do well as an administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by EurovisionNim (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 October 2015‎ (UTC)
4. Support: I really like Ian.thomsons answer to question 9. He seems to be a thoughtful and positive editor, and his answers to the questions asked of him lead me to believe he'll act responsibly with admin tools. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Ian has never failed to impress me with his grasp of policy and his unflinching committment to neutrality. He's an asset to the project as it is; he would make a superb administrator. Also, I really like the answer to Q11. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Outstanding cruft fighter...level headed and with a sense of humor. Has decent contributions history and only one block almost five years ago. Most importantly, his prompt answer to my sanity check question number 12 demonstrates that Ian has the right temperment to deal with what could ostensibly be considered trolling.--MONGO 08:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Support I've seen him playing good roles in protecting many articles against problematic edits and editors. He has been a dedicated user to Wikipedia so far. He is a good candidate for adminship. In general, I'm satisfied with his contribution patterns. However, in some cases, he has the scope to be more friendly to those holding dissenting views (e.g. in this comment, in my view) because adminship is something more than just maintenance activities. Let us give him the chance to prove his credentials. -AsceticRosé 08:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support, not finding any reason not to. I can't really see that admiring Mad Jack Churchill or Hunter S. Thompson is evidence of a character trait to be disliked; nor do i look for po-facedness in admins. My requirement is that a candidate be trustworthy, and i see this candidate to be so. I do suggest that he keep an eye on his tongue (there's a physically impossible metaphor for you!) when interacting with other users, as he seems to have a slight edge to it; that, though, is no reason for me not to land here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Support He is good, can be tough and seems fair. Throw in a bit of cleverness as is the case and all that makes for a very good volunteer Admin. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Support - was uncertain for a while but he is going very well at the questions and he would use his tools well. Also has clue, and I second Lindsay's notion about the people he openly admires. The one that forgot (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
11. Support. Excellent choice of role models. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
12. Support - My experience with this editor has been positive, I do not know enough though to cast doubt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
13. Support, casual look at contributions shows cool head in disputes. Main question is why he hasn't been made an admin earlier. Looking through the contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for relisting and WP:ANI, my only complaints could be based on WP:OMGWTFBBQ. —Kusma (t·c) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
14. Support - All of Ians answers here are quite honestly well thought out ... Infact I'd say they were perfect!, The Churchill thing is IMHO nothing to oppose over and and same goes for the block, Anyway Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :). –Davey2010^Talk 13:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
15. Support precious fighting prejudice, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
16. Support The answers to my questions, plus the good track record on AfD / CSD, keeping calm in disputes despite being personally attacked, and giving attention to detail have convinced me Ian deserves the mop and bucket. PS: A sense of humour, when used appropriately, can greatly defuse situations. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
17. Support. Although the answer to Q13 was initially concerning, the candidate's answers to Q18 and Q21 is enough to convince me that this candidate is a net positive. sst✈ 14:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
18. Support As nominator. Pedro :  Chat  14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
19. Support also as nominator.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
20. Support. Gladly. I think we need more admins in general but especially ones capable of patrolling those areas of subject matter that the nominee is interested in. -- œ^™ 14:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
21. Support- Good track record. Excellent answers to the questions, including my own. Nothing has turned up in the oppose section so far that concerns me in the least. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
22. Support - Edit count breakdown looks good. I count Hunter S. Thompson in his favor, although I would like to know what kind of music he listens to and what his favorite color is so I can oppose on that basis if necessary. (Blue is OK, forest green is better, turquoise is a big "NO", and syntho-pop has been shown to correlate strongly with wanton misuse of the block button.) BMK (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
23. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. Good, prompt answers overall to a barrage of questions, and the candidate's answer to Q3 is a welcome bit of humor in what has become an increasingly-grim process. Good luck. Miniapolis 14:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
24. Support Per noms, Ritchie, and Mongo. Looks like a suitable candidate with a level head and measured demeanor. RO^(talk) 15:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
25. Support. 100% suitable candidate. I was planning on nominating Ian myself but Berean Hunter beat me to it. 'Nuff said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support - Good answers to the questions. I have a positive opinion on him because of our interactions and I find no strong reason to oppose. Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

26. Support I always appreciate candidates who are willing to work in contentious areas. Not because I think they bring contention with them, but we have a lot of 'middle of the road' bipartisan admins. I suspect it's the result of the increasing community demands on candidates and anyone that leans to far in one direction has a very difficult time passing. I've read over some of the questions, and some of them are a bit short or not as detailed as I would perhaps hope, but nothing that comes out as a deal breaking red flag. We've got to be on track for a record in the number of questions being asked of this candidate. They have my sympathies. Everything else about this candidate more than meets my RFA standards so I am happily here in the support column. Mkdw^talk 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
27. Support. Ian appears to be a level-headed, competent editor. He has been blocked, but that was four years ago. Even though some opposers complain about his answers to CSD-related questions, his tagging in practice seems to be rather accurate. --Biblioworm 16:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
28. Support Absolute full-throated support from me. Ian's been doing the hard work of dealing with the crazies without the tools. It's high time he gets the tools and is empowered to do more for the community. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
29. Support - I've seen good work from this editor, and he seems very level-headed. I think he'd make an excellent admin. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
30. Support - Seems well suited to use admin tools, a good track record from what I can see. --Rubbish computer 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
31. Support Seems all-round sensible and suitable for the tools. I'm confident that he'll make a good admin. JAGUAR  19:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
32. Strong support, the second part of which refutes the opposes #2 and #3. We need admins that maintain neutral POVs and contention. Ian is one example of an editor who do that well. I don't really doubt him, especially since he is very calm in all of the comments that I see.
    Plus, his article deletion record is good. His deletion reasoning is even better. Ian stated, If I can't find any sources whatsoever about the article subject at all (e.g. harpelincanogosh), then I'm probably going to just delete it (though notifying the user). I totally agree with him. If you can find absolutely zero sources whatsoever (note my emphasis; also, he didn't say "reliable sources" or "insider sources that no one can really find on the internet"), it's probably not notable at all. Epic Genius (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
33. Absolute support. We desperately need admins like Ian. There are only a handful who routinely deal with extremely malicious editors who have created hundreds or thousands of sockpuppet accounts and who engage in harassment of editors and all manner of other disruption; it takes skill at recognising patterns of edits, and it takes a thick skin to cope with the extreme abuse that results. Not many people can put up with tat, but Ian has been doing it—and doing it remarkably well—for years. Giving him his own banhammer instead of having to borrow mine or NawlinWiki's or Materialscientist's or some other admin's will only speed up the process of removing these people. As for the opposers, I like an admin who takes himself seriously but not too seriously, and there are cases (such as G1, 3, 5, 10 as Ian notes above) where summarily deleting without tagging is entirely appropriate, and policy admins are allowed to do so for any criterion. I believe Ian would make an excellent admin, and we should not require admins to be flawless. All admins, most certainly including this one, have their flaws. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
34. Support Trusted user. Very likely to be a net positive as an admin. Pichpich (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
35. Absolute support I've known Ian for some time, particularly regarding his work on content related to religion and the occult and the like. It is hard for me to imagine anyone working in that general topic area who I would trust more, and we definitely need admins working in that area. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
36. Support Does good work calmly. If there are any problems with AFD/CSD as expressed below, they will be quickly sorted out. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
37. Support, trusted and clueful user. My experience of his work matches HJ Mitchell's above: we need admins who are prepared to wade into contentious areas and to take on difficult users. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC).
38. Support per Ritchie333. I admire his ability to keep a relatively cool head in disputes and I'm enjoying reading through the articles he has worked on (especially the esoterica). I would like a clearer, specific answer to Q3, but I get a good sense about this user's attitude in dealing with others and would wager he probably kept it well within bounds. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
39. Support: Sensible, mature, not easily swayed. My impression is that he is his own man, and with clue. Didn't read the questions; going from observation. Ceoil (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
40. Support based on level-headed contributions in difficult content areas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
41. Support A very positive member of the community who will be even more helpful with a mop. Swarm ♠ 07:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
42. Support A hardworking member indeed who totally deserve the mop. Ayub407^talk 09:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
43. Support Seems to me Ian would be a net positive as a project admin.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
44. Support, even though the answers around speedy deletion are somewhat concerning. However, having looked at the actual tagging done by the user, there isn't anything that looks too concerning to me; I'm willing to write the poor answers off as an injudicious choice of words rather than anything truly problematic. I would counsel them though to have a fresh read through WP:CSD to understand what can and can't be nuked before giving that delete button a workout. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
45. Qualified support - I'm a bit unhappy with the answer to Q19. The CSD criteria specify those cases where the community has agreed to bypass the normal consensus processes, because it is so obvious what the consensus should be in such cases. Because it involves bypassing consensus processes, the criteria shouldn't be stretched. But this isn't quite enough to push me over the line. Ian understands what the encyclopedia is about, doesn't take himself too seriously, and can keep a level head in debates on the very difficult talk pages that appear in that section of his contributions list. That's the sort of editor we need wielding the tools. HJMitchell said it very well, as usual. --Stfg (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
46. Weak support: user seems very experienced, competent and like they would benefit massively from having the tools, but their answers in regard to the CSD questions made me uneasy. I think Bbb23 summed up the situation quite well in their neutral !vote. I want to assume good faith, but either Ian.thomson's attitude towards CSD is a tiny bit too lax or they've been slightly ineloquent in this RfA. But I think they'll be a net positive as an admin, and I just advise them to be a bit cautious, at least initially, when speedily deleting pages. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
47. Support NETPOSITIVE. The concerns that were raised up to this time, I feel they are quite weak. People make mistakes, they learn from them only. I think the candidate's understanding of CSD will improve in-the-job. And thanks, Ian.thomson, I think I need spectacles. Jim Carter 16:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
48. Support per Pedro (and Berean). My quick looked shows that I may not fully agree on some of the deletion issues, but I trust the user to exercise his best judgement to support what is best for the project. — Ched :  ?  18:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
49. Support based on the interaction I have had with and the reactions I have observed from Ian. But in question 15, Ian, there is enough who-what-when-context to decline the Db-a1 on the spot. I would. Good luck. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
50. Longterm experienced editor who clearly seems more than ready for the tools. Q15 aside, Ian's recent deleted edits and deletion tagging looks fine to me. As the questions show he gets Wikipedia, even if he isn't following that useful unwritten RFA guideline of always reread the relevant policy before answering a question, especially if you haven't spotted the trick part of it. He would benefit from rereading some policies; Deleting an article on "someone's new puppies" is not just in the spirit of our speedy deletion rules, it meets the criteria for "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" (my bolding). I'm supporting because in most respects his editing and question answers show him at least as cautious as policy re speedy deletion, though his tagging articles for A1 or A3 deletion after barely a quarter of an hour is no more delayed than policy requires. I'm not worried about a cautious admin who will sometimes tag an article for deletion rather than summarily deleting it themselves, or who would put more effort than policy requires into trying to source an article before deleting it. An overcautious admin is likely to perform fewer deletions per hour than an under cautious one, but is less likely to delete the wrong page and more likely to save and source something that might otherwise have been lost. So in my opinion we can be far more tolerant of cautious admins such as Ian looks set to be than we should be of incautious ones who make errors at deletion and bite newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 19:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
51. Support - I'm tempted to say just for having the guts to transclude following the last train wreck here and for the Mad Jack Churchill reference... More seriously though Ian appears to be a highly experienced editor that is here for the right reasons and can be trusted to grow into the role of being an admin. From reading his answers to the questions and the other votes here I see no reason why he would not be a NETPOSITIVE. So what if he didn't answer every trick question perfectly? Anotherclown (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
52. Support Seems to have plenty of clue, and has responded to the deluge of questions here in good humor. His work in contentious discussions implies he has an appropriate temperament for an admin. CSD, PROD, and AfD logs indicate he understands deletion policy (although his initial answers to questions about speedy deletion needed some clarification, which he has now provided). --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
53. Support It doesn't appear he will abuse the bit or delete the Main Page. --DHeyward (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
54. Support. Good contribution history. The one block for 3RR violation is quite old, and the editor seems mature. Answers to the question indicate that he can be trusted with the responsibility. utcursch | talk 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
55. Support, solid eye for diagnosing disruptive editors and a relatively rational hand in cleaning up after them. I respect opposes 2-6, but those concerns do not outweigh the positives this editors would bring with access to the additional tools. Kuru (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
56. Support no reason to think this candidate would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
57. Support Enough content contributions for me to be satisfied they have a stake in the pedia. All else looks good. I understand where the opposes are coming from but I don't think it will impact their being a fine admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
58. I don't see any issues here. Good luck! Kurtis ^(talk) 03:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
59. Support - a responsible guy, Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
60. Strong support: Highly experienced and qualified candidate; has fine contributions and good judgement. Esquivalience ^t 15:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
61. Support. I'm very impressed by the answers to the questions and I'm confident he will use the tools responsibly and cluefully. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
62. Support -- An excellent all-around editor. Ian has demonstrated an understanding of policy and good judgement in applying it -- as well as the good common sense (and humor) that will best help him complete administrative tasks. I trust he will be fine. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
63. Support - per nomination statements and list of distinguished supporters, who make a strong case. In contrast, I am unconvinced by opposers reasoning. Impressive service to the 'pedia, my thanks to the candidate and best wishes. Jusdafax 17:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
64. Weak support Some of the opposes make valid points. I don't LOVE some of the answers to the questions. However, I don't think this user will really mess up with the tools. Plus we need more admins. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
65. Support All in all, I can't see a strong reason to oppose. There are many good things said above, and I think my initial worries about speedy deleting without second opinion were misplaced. (There ARE cases where you can, cases where you should, and mostly cases where you shouldn't...). I also like his response to Mongo's impersonation of Keepscases. I'm obviously not the only one who misses his questions. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
66. Support Despite the concerns of some editors about CSD articles, I find no substantial reason to oppose this RFA. Not everyone (even administrators) can be expected to be absolutely perfect all the time. Pulling a couple diffs out of context doesn't seem to be a productive thing to do, in my opinion. From my assessment of the candidate, he appears to be a level-headed person who tends to assume good faith rather than making hasty decisions. He has made substantial contributions to the encyclopedia, and we always need more administrators. I see no reason why this user should not be trusted with the sysop tools. Though I would advise the user that should he find himself in a CSD situation that seems borderline, to differ to a more experienced administrator. Once he has more experience, I'm confident he will consistently make good decisions. Mww113 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
67. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
68. Support. I've crossed paths with the candidate many times, so I am both comfortable and enthusiastic in my support. I find what HJ Mitchell said very convincing, and the support from WereSpielChequers allays any concerns I might have had about deletion. And, about deletion, it seems to me that this is something where RfA has made it too much of a gotcha issue. I find the answers to questions clueful, and, good grief folks, do we really need 31 questions? Anyway, this is an intelligent editor with lots of content experience and good judgment about other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
69. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
70. Support. Never interacted with Ian before, but I am satisfied with his answers to the questions, which strike me as clueful rather than unaware of policy (although it would be nice to see clarification regarding Q15 that he would delete using A7 or AfD instead of A1). Overall, has my trust to use the mop intelligently. — Earwig ^talk 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
71. Support - I see plenty of evidence that Ian is a trusted editor who would use the tools responsibly (and indeed use them). Absent compelling evidence of patterns of poor judgment/abuse, this seems like an easy support for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
72. Trustworthy. Opposes appear to be nothing more than minor disagreements in administering philosophy. NW (Talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
73. Clueful, long and excellent history. As others have said -- trustworthy. Antandrus (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
74. Support – Net positive. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
75. Support - I have come across this user many times at AIV. He can be trusted with the mop and bucket.--5 albert square (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
76. Support Very well qualified editor, his admiration for Hunter Thompson and Mad Jack Churchill is a bonus. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
77. Support – While serving on admin duty it may be necessary to dial back the rhetoric and I hope Ian is planning to do this. We do need admins who are willing to enforce policy in a patient manner. (The old ones tend to burn out and somebody needs to replace them). Ian.thomson has relevant experience and the willingness to wade into conflict situations, and he will be an asset to the admin corps. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
78. Support There are many good reasons to support this candidate, well summarized by respected editors above, and the arguments to oppose are weak and unpersuasive, in my judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
79. Support Seems clueful. wctaiwan (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
80. Support Ian appears to know what he's doing. Answers to deletion questions a slight concern but I believe he's clarified his intentions well enough. clpo13_(talk) 05:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
81. Support I see no issues to be concerned with. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
82. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
83. Support A well-experienced, diplomatic candidate with a sincere explanation of their block log. --JustBerry (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
84. Support Experienced, shows good judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
85. Support per Mkdw. Begoon ^talk 12:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
86. Support with advice. Thank you for your response to my previously cast neutral vote. I'm supporting your candidacy for the many excellent reasons offered by other supporters. I nonetheless suggest you learn from some of the criticism in this RfA. The obvious one is the deletion issue. Even though I think you have a better handle on when to spontaneously delete an article, I recommend that you consult with other administrators you respect before doing so, at least at the beginning. I also think that B's criticism was valid, and even your response didn't satisfy me. Your statement that depending on the candidate's answer, you might have supported his candidacy was rather surprising. I personally can't think of any reason to have supported the user at this point in time. Perhaps his answer might have changed the content of an oppose, but it wouldn't move me, had I voted, to support. Still, that issue alone is not enough to oppose your candidacy in my view. Finally, although you write well, it appears that too often you don't say exactly what you mean. That causes confusion and the need for clarifications. On a more personal note, your RL background is impressive. You have had the luxury of being exposed (exposing yourself?) to many different life perspectives. I would imagine that spills over in a positive manner into everything you do, including what you do here. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
87. Support I encourage Ian to take care to follow the deletion policy. Otherwise I have no concerns about this candidate, they will make a great admin. HighInBC 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
88. Support - solid experience, I did not notice any clear red flags myself, and those that current opposers have brought up do not seem so serious.--Staberinde (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
89. Support - not enamoured of the answer re "User:$$£$YEPP" - they should be directed to the ToS and WP:COI, not instantly blocked. Their subsequent edits should be evaluated with WP:COI in mind. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
    
90. Support I'm not very concerned about the concerns raised in the oppose, but the candidate seems to excellent would thoughtfully exercise the tools, and has garnered support from some very trusted users (HJ Mitchell, WereSpielChequersWereSpielChequers, etc.) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
91. Support per HJ Mitchell's comments. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
92. Support Looks good and trustworthy to me. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
93. Support. I'm sympathetic to the sentiment raised in this week's Signpost op-ed, so I only set my bar high in a few areas that should be easy to pass – mostly civility and collaboration. After looking at your most edited articles, I'm not surprised to find you on many noticeboards, but you present very well there in the several appearances I looked at. Nice to see that the admin who blocked you supports you here, and that another editor who reported you for 3RR (which was declined) also supports you here. However, I too share B's concern about that unnecessary and uncivil question you asked at a recently snow-closed RfA. No, it can't be justified by calling it "hypothetical". I'll grant a pass there, but I don't want to see many more edits like that. I trust this editor to be receptive to any concerns raised about their speedy deletions, so that's not a concern of mine at all. I also agree with Rich; users admitting to editing with a conflict of interest for cash should be engaged with to channel their work towards following COI policies. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
94. Support per noms, and Wbm1058 sums it up pretty well above. I'm in the we need more admins camp, and this candidate is well above average, if not perfect. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
95. Support - Sufficient tenure and edits. One edit-warring block on a more-or-less uncontroversial topic. Seems a little goofy with a couple answers but no real concerns and supported by some of the Trusted Authorities at En-WP. I haven't dug into AfD history, but no problems anticipated here. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

    I will also add that I like his interpretation of IAR, one of the most important mechanisms for keeping this circus functioning — rules should not hinder the intelligent development of the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

96. Support Clear net-positive as far as I can tell. Plenty of advice in all three !vote columns to bring with you, I'm sure you'll do great — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
97. Support: A long term user who has been unafraid of being involved in controversial areas and has made valuable contributions and understood and followed the Wikipedia way. Give him the tools to help him be more useful.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
98. Good record on contentious topics. Clueful and has good judgement and common sense. I think he'll be an excellent admin. Support without reservations. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
99. Pile-on 100. Kidding aside, I have reviewed several dozen of the candidate's talk page comments and other interactions with some of the, uh, more opinionated and doctrinaire folks who frequent religion-related articles like God, etc. Generally, I have found the candidate's responses to be measured and respectful, but sometimes snappish and more than a little sarcastic in response to accusations, trolling and inflamed rhetoric from users who do not fully appreciate the NPOV and CIVIL pillars of our little encyclopedia project. I trust that Ian, when given the tools, will readily exhibit the patience and measured language that are the stock in trade of our best administrators. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
100. Support. Impeccable noms. Lots of reason to suspect this candidate is a sticker and cares about building the best online encyclopedia. Has handled this process well. Based on my reading of the user's edits, admitted errors and assertions by editors here (support, oppose, other), I see an imperfect candidate who meets my definition of net positive. I identify with candidates who make mistakes and learn from them. I can work with someone like that. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
101. Support. Having reviewed the candidate's answers to all of the questions posted (31 so far) as well as the oppose and neutral votes and the reasons for same, I do not believe the candidate will intentionally misuse the bit. I also have some concerns about the answer to question 13, but this is not enough to change my vote, and I believe the candidate will learn from the various comments about the answer to that question. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
102. Support. Per Yunshui; Lindsay; HJ Mitchell; MelanieN; Tryptofish; MusikAnimal and Dirtlawyer1, including the slight concerns and advice expressed. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
103. Stephen 03:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
104. Support. I sat on the fence on this one for a while due to the answer to Q13, but ultimately I decided I trust Ian. The oppose section does not persuade me otherwise. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
105. Support. More likely to be effective than half the people who currently have admin bits. No issues that give me pause, although I admit to rolling my eyes at a few of the opposes. Risker (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
106. Support per Yunshui and HJ Mitchell's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
107. Support Well respected, long-time user with no problems. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
108. Support No big deal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

     Like - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

109. Support: Waited a bit to see if anything would materialize in the OPPOSE section. Now I am sure IAN will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
110. Jianhui67 ^T★C 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
111. Support: Handles self well in difficult arenas, great editor. Scr★pIron^IV 18:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
112. Support After reviewing random chunks of contribs and talk page activity, I found nothing that would lead me to forecast future problems and lots of reasons to support. Ian's adminship will benefit the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
113. Support per noms. I generally don't agree with the opposes, and some of them seem rather petty.- MrX 19:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
114. Support: Ian seems dedicated and has made good contributions and shown a level head. A lot of questions have been asked and answered here and it seems that he would be a great addition to the admin team.Ririgidi (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
115. Support Willing, ready, and from a review of their edits and responses here, able.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
116. Support. He's competent and can be trusted. Not perfect, but nobody is. Moriori (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
117. Support: A little concerned about the approach to CSD, as a lot of people of notability prior to "teh intranetz" may not turn up in Google, but so long as he doesn't delete an article like Hilda Plowright and considers PROD over CSD on any marginal case, I'm good. Plus, this was a right and proper call. There's a fine line between snarky humor and obnoxious sarcasm, but seems to understand where the line is most of the time. Definition of a diplomat is not a doormat, but rather is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you look forward to the trip. Past history of wikignoming and activity at the drama boards suggests he's well-suited. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
118. Support I've seen Ian around the 'pedia through the years and he is one of the editors I trust. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
119. Support more than likely net positive. Hard to do out of process deletions that won't be questioned somewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
120. Support per Andrew D. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
121. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
122. Support makes sense...Modernist (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
123. Support Well-rounded and trustworthy user. Would definitely be helpful to the project as an admin. Spencer^T♦C 19:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
124. Support - no concerns here, and this is obviously going to pass, so I'm throwing myself on the pile-on. I thought you were already an admin. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
125. Support - Everything looks good, and the issues to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
126. Support as per Ivanvector. --Human3015^TALK  22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
127. Support after reviewing comments I feel confident Ian Thompson will be a welcome and helpful addition in an administrative capacity. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
128. Support', seen him around in some of the contentious content areas and I have a good impression from those observations. —SpacemanSpiff 03:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
129. Support Did some investigation and didn't find major concerns at all. I recommend to be careful with the "Unsourced" deletions, though - sources are often not easy to find.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
130. Support', Happy to support Brookie :) { - like the mist, he's here and then he's gone!} ^(Whisper...) 09:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
131. Support, seems like a net positive. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
132. Support. Agreed with The_ed17 (support #1). - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
133. Support. Per Risker. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
134. Support: I've seen this editor around for a while. Their maturity level, experience, and editing skills are strong. - tucoxn\^talk 15:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
135. Support. Responsible and trustworthy. —Wasell^(T) 16:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
136. We need more no nonsense admintrators Secret (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
137. Support: Per no red flags + admin no big deal. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
138. Support: we do need more admins, and I'm not worried he'll go completely gonzo. Jonathunder (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
139. Support Per Berian Hunter and clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose His user page advocates Mad Jack Churchill and Hunter S. Thompson as role-models. Browsing his contributions for April, I see him answering questions about dating and cheap cola at the Reference desk; marking reversions as minor edits even if they are substantial; making reference to DGAF at AFD. I get the impression that he's not sufficiently po-faced and serious to be a good admin. This might be a misleading first impression but I take candidates as I find them. Andrew D. (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. ~~~~ Esquivalience ^t 21:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Answers to #1 and #13 reveal an out-of-process attitude toward deletion. Deletion needs to involve checks and balances, even for speedy: one person tags for speedy and notifies the article creator, and another person deletes (if warranted). It should not be a one-step unilateral decision. Also, flaws in the Google-result thinking (or understanding of how to do effective Googling). If doing proper and intelligent Google searches, search setting should be on 100 results per page (not ten, which seems to be implied). And if Googling properly (that is, with extensive use of quotation marks etc.), getting any results equates to results, so talking about not finding any "results" in more than one Google page makes no sense to me. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   If an article(tagged as speedy delete), is unsourced with zero reference, he will search for references himself. If he can't any reliable reference, he will delete the page. This is what Administrator must do, even if it'hurts the sentiment of the page creator.112.79.36.77 (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

   I didn't even use the term "reliable." I said I can't find any sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

   The article might well be speediable on other grounds, and looking for refs is a good idea. But not all references are Googleable (yet), so I have to agree with consensus here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
   

   I would support a change of policy that at least some speedy deletion criteria require a two step process, A7 at least. Though I'm very much with the candidate that if an admin spots a page that merits G10 deletion they should summarily delete it. But the appropriate place to advocate such a policy change is in an RFC not an RFA, especially not in the RFA of a candidate who has volunteered that they would do more than policy obliges before speedy deleting pages. ϢereSpielChequers 16:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

   Strong oppose per Softlavender. BethNaught (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC) moved to neutral BethNaught (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose with reluctance, due to WP:CSD concerns. I don't necessarily have a problem with an admin deleting a page directly that clearly meets the speedy deletion criteria, per WP:IAR if nothing else, but I am concerned based on the question answers that the candidate does not fully understand the speedy deletion criteria. For instance, the answer to question 15 is just wrong. WP:CSD#A1 is for articles that lack any context to identify the subject. The single sentence identifies the subject as an organization in a city; therefore, the article doesn't fall under A1. I do applaud the candidate for saying he'd seek to find sources to expand the article prior to deleting. The speedy deletion criteria are in place to allow summary deletion of pages that are either immediate dangers to the project (e.g. WP:CSD#G10, WP:CSD#G12) or would not have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving at WP:AFD. I am concerned that the candidate would apply the speedy deletion criteria more aggressively than policy intends. I also note that there are quite a few more blue links in the CSD log linked in the answer to question 16 than I would have expected. –Grondemar 16:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   It does look a little vague from a glance, but the impression I get from Q15 is that Ian would do a number of things depending on what sources he could uncover, absolutely none of which involve deleting the article per CSD A1 which, as he and you say, is incorrect. I took the "delete the article" at the end to mean a different criteria, probably CSD A7, or even sending to AfD, and I'm sure that's what he meant. We've had this question before, incidentally, and it's a real topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose - I'm sorry, man. I think you've done great work on Wikipedia, but the fact that you want to perform article deletions, and looking at the answers you've provided give me great concern. I am not convinced that you have a proficient knowledge of the CSD process. The statement, "I would probably start off just deleting anything I can't find any sources on (even questionable ones)" brings me great pause. The answer to Q14 is missing a very important piece regarding the proper use of A7 and A9 and determining whether or not an article meets the criterion, and the answer to Q15 is very far off (I'll even go as far as saying, incorrect). Recently, you tagged an article for CSD that was created in 2003 for a copyvio edit. After removing that CSD tag, you PROD'd the article citing copyvio and the quality of its sources. Nobody is perfect; I've certainly made mistakes with CSD tagging - we all do. A mistake like this may draw slight pause for me, but pairing this along with your answers and your statement leave me concerned. I think you need to show more proficiency with the CSD process and stick to it for a bit longer. You're awesome, and I hope you know that. But when you create an RfA indicating that you'll use the tools for certain areas, you need to demonstrate that you will use the tools correctly for those areas... and I'm just not seeing that right now. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   Oshwah, you have pulled that diff out of context and accused Ian of something he didn't actually do. He tagged United Lodge of Theosophists as G12 presumably as it gives a just under 80% likelihood of a copyvio via the tool. He then reverted his own speedy and copyedited the article so it wasn't a copyvio, presumably concluded it couldn't be improved to an acceptable standard, and PRODded it. Another editor removed the PROD tag for no reason - no "declining prod - subject is 'x'" in the edit summary. Indeed, checking the current state of the article reports a very high risk of copyvio, to the extent I've reverted that edit myself - I can't restore the PROD tag per policy, but I think it's at a high risk of being sent to AfD unless somebody finds some sources PDQ. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   That article was PRODed on the grounds that "No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG..." That's not a valid reason because such sources are easy to find (e.g. Religions of the World). PROD is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial cases but this is a good faith article and someone shows up quickly to remove the prod. The candidate then engages in discussion with them on the talk page and, at that point, goes looking for good sources and finds them. But he then fails to follow through and leaves the article in its current poor state. This indicates an unsatisfactory inclination to shoot first, ask questions later, but not properly record the answers. As he's made hundreds of edits to articles like Jesus, God, Abraham, Lucifer, &c., I get the impression that he's somewhat tendentious about religious topics. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   Hi, Ritchie333. I appreciate you for expressing concerns regarding the diffs I provided and stating that you believe that this was taken out of context. I'm going to take a second look at the diffs I provided and from a broader perspective, and re-evaluate the context and it's relevancy with this RfA. However, I do want to push back at part of your response. You said that I "accused Ian of something he didn't actually do". First of all, I want to assert that I made absolutely no accusations towards Ian.thomson. I only stated what I found; he CSD'd an article, removed it, and PROD'd it. If I implied any accusations that I'm not thinking of, please let me know. Looking through his contributions and his interactions with other editors, I can say that I really like this guy. He reminds me of me; he has great humor, he's chill, and he's always positive (haha... assuming that I'm this way too?). This kind of personality is absolutely needed in an admin, and he would be an asset in this aspect when it comes to cooling highly heated disputes. He can do it by simply being himself... which is absolutely awesome. But, the CSD issues I brought fourth is what is holding me back. As much as I hate to oppose a guy like this, I must do so at this time :-( ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

5. Oppose I share the concerns of Softlavender and Oshwah. Samsara 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I was going to say "Mostly harmless", but I too am concerned by the answer to question 13. Just because a Google search found no obvious results does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable. Deletion of these new articles without giving the author a chance to respond has the potential to frustrate and dissuade new editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

   My exact words were "any sources whatsoever" (not obvious or reliable sources), and I specified that I check not just a general Google search but also in Google books and Google news. You have to grant that that is more thorough and lenient than only "obvious results" from just "a Google search." Ian.thomson (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I'm not thrilled with this edit [1]. --B (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   I was asking that candidate an intentionally tough question to help them consider WP:NOTNOW. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   Well, that wasn't even my concern with it. My primary concern was that you put profane/rude words in Jimbo's mouth. Did Jimbo actually say those words to someone? If you're going to give an example in an RFA question, it's more courteous to use a made-up example with made-up user names (unless you are, in fact, asking about a specific case from the candidate's history). But sense you brought it up ... if your view is that the user should withdraw (which, by the time you left this question, seemed a likely outcome), then you should say so. That's the idea of WP:POINT. If you believe that someone should withdraw their RFA, you should !vote oppose or leave them a message at their talk page. You shouldn't demonstrate experimentally that they should withdraw by asking something of a Kobayashi Maru question that you don't really care about the answer to. --B (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

   I assumed that it was clear that the question was a hypothetical, and went back and added "Clearly hypothetical" to the beginning of it. He wasn't getting the point from people just telling him, so an indirect approach seemed better. And there were specific answers that would have prompted me to move my answer to "support." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

   Did I answer your question correctly? Based on the above conversation I think I am missing something. Can you please tell me the secret behind your question? Supdiop (T🔹C) 12:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

   (Explained on user's talk page). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

   Oppose Answering to number 26 regarding the SPI case under the candidate's name doesn't match up. The candidate starts their answer with "I don't think I remember that SPI." If the candidate was using a VPN, they should have been fully conscious of their using of the VPN. In that case, why would their school IP be associated with the account? Even if you suppose that the VPN was turned off and on, hence the logging of both IPs under the candidate's account, the rationale of "I don't think I mentioned the block to anyone in the class" seems to suggest that the user was aware of the block, and in turn, the SPI case. I don't feel comfortable voting up an RfA with an unclear story like this. --JustBerry (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

   I didn't set up a VPN until it was confirmed I was moving to China, so the reasoning given is inapplicable. Also, it's a non sequitor that being aware of a block means one is aware of an SPI (especially when one was never notified of an SPI). If you're going to oppose me for some other reason, fine, but the ones you gave are completely at odds with what happened. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

   Moving not per comment above, but per answer to the question I posed in the questions section of the RfA. --JustBerry (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose - per questions 1, 14, 15, explicitly plans to go rogue on CSD. In an era of declining participation, admin candidates who pledge to bite new users are not helpful, nor beneficial to the project. WilyD 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

   Good thing he was so explicit about his incipient rougeness and predilection to BITE. I wonder whatever made him speak so forthrightly? Or, maybe, could it be that you've misinterpreted what he's said, possibly? Nah, that couldn't be it... BMK (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

9. Spitting in the wind at this point, but oppose per 13, 14, 15 and 1. Doesn't seem to understand CSD criteria even after a bunch of questions have been asked. That's not the end of the world, but this candidate plans on working with CSD. (Hint: you not being able to find sources is not a reason to speedy). Hobit (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral just for the minute. The basic statistics (good AfD stats, good mix of article / project edits etc) all check out, but I'm uncomfortable about the answer to Q13, which makes me wonder if Ian is the sort of admin who'd delete University of Michigan Men's Glee Club (AfD) or Ika Hügel-Marshall (AfD). However, I'm prepared to admit I may be mistaken on this issue, and would appreciate some clarification on what he means by "If I can't find any sources whatsoever about the article subject at all ... then I'm probably going to just delete it (though notifying the user)." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC) (moving to support)

1. Likewise. I'm a bit concerned by this. Deb (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
   • Why? I don't see anything wrong with it.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
     • Because I think an admin should know the difference between a wiki and wiki software. Deb (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   The thread was titled "wiki's christian systemic bias." I know that one uses wiki software to make a wiki, of which Wikipedia is the most popular -- I was the only person in the thread not using "wiki" and "Wikipedia" as synonyms. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   The software is called MediaWiki. Samsara 17:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Neutral, leaning weak oppose. I'm sitting here. This is yet another RFA candidate that has "User talk:" edits in the top 2 amounts of their edits (which, to me, doesn't prove activity in forums where admins participate, nor proves need for the tools ... for me.) However, I'm currently not motivated to oppose based on other information I'm seeing here right now, so I'll just sit here and read how the rest of the discussion goes to see if I change my mind. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   In fact, since I just noticed that even thought their "User talk:" edits take up what I consider "a whopping" 33.37% of the nominee's total edits, since namespaces #3 and #4 are "Wikipedia:" and "Talk:", respectively, I've switched my statement from "neutral, weak oppose" to a "true neutral". Edits in the "Wikipedia:" and "Talk:" namespace are crucial to understanding the processes which administrators have to participate; the "Wikipedia:" namespace is home to all WP:XFD forums, policy pages, WP:AN and WP:RFPP, amongst others and in the "Talk:", administrators have to close WP:RM requests there (and "Talk:" is more important than say "Wikipedia talk:" or "Template talk:" since it directly deals with naming articles per established policies.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   I really don't get this as it seems completely backwards. I expect to see a high percentage of user talk posts for candidates interested in helping out at AIV, RFPP, AFD, or CSD as that shows experience in handing out warnings and communicating with problematic or inexperienced editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   I don't get this on an even more fundamental level. In non-WP:NOTNOW RFAs, the percentage of edits to certain namespaces never indicates that a user is unsuitable for adminship. It also never indicates that a candidate is suitable for adminship. A high percentage of edits in a certain namespace means that a lot of a candidate's edits are to that namespace, nothing more, nothing less. For example, user talk edits can be vandalism warnings, or can be social networking. Talk: edits can be semiautomated WikiProject tagging, POV arguing or careful mediation or a lot of other things. Wikipedia: edits can be just about anything including reporting vandals at AIV, trolling at the reference desk, relisting AFDs, chatting to newbies at the help desk, or, if the edits are old, even social networking at Esperanza or playing games. In short: the number and distribution of edits per namespace is not an indication for anything. —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   One day, I plan on creating a page in my user space that explains my concerns in some detail in regards to what I am saying in a rather descriptive breakdown. For now, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I am correct or incorrect in this manner, but rather, this is where I stand, this is how I think, and this is where I will remain. If anyone desires any more details about my stance which I have already voiced, please refer to the any of the past four most recent RFAs, not including this one. (In other words, I understand that this opinion needs a rather expansive breakdown, but I am getting a bit tired if repeating myself in these discussions. In fact, I think I may just copy what has been said thus far in regards to my breakdown in this matter in a page on my user space so that I really stop getting bombarded by these questions in regards to my stance.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   Neutral. I rarely vote at RfA, and I don't think I've ever put myself in the Neutral camp before, but rather than add a longish question on CSD (there've been so many), I figured I'd express my confusion here instead. So far, we have various statements from Ian about CSD and deleting articles. In addition, Ian has sought to clarify some of his answers. Finally, we have users who are interpreting Ian's clarifications. Despite all that, I don't have a clear sense of his position on speedy deletion. Much of the time, when Ian talks about checking Google sources, etc., he sounds like any editor doing due diligence before sending an article to AfD. Sources are rarely relevant to speedy deletion. One clear answer from Ian was when he was asked (Q21) when he would routinely delete an article spontaneously rather than tagging it or deleting it in response to a tag. Skipping the weasel word "probably", he said he would do it if it fit the criteria G1, G3, G5, G10, or A11. I'm not sure I would do it based on A11, but it's not a bad list. I would add G8 for a Talk page, assuming there's no valid reason for keeping it dangling out there (there actually are a few valid reasons), or for a redirect to a deleted page. I would also add G12. So, based on all that, what are all the answers about deleting an article because it's unsourced? Ian didn't mention A7 in his list, which is good because that would, in my view, be a mistake. If the only times Ian would speedy delete an article is based on his list, then I personally would be satisfied with such a categorical answer (pun intended).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC) (moving to support)

   @Bbb23: I don't mean to be a douche about this, but you typed "netural". "Netural", you say? Epic Genius (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Oh, I see, you killed the typo. Epic Genius (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

   @Bbb23: Your concern on that topic (as well as its appearance in the oppose sections as well as the acknowledgement of that reasoning in the support section) has me thinking that I will need to work my way into new page patrol a little more cautiously, perhaps leaving a post-it on my monitor listing the only criteria I can just delete instead of speedy-tagging (starting with the previously mentioned list and adding G8 for talk pages). That list covers the sort of articles I had in mind when I said that I'd delete articles for which sources do not exist (with the exception of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTFACEBOOK type stuff that I'm now seeing pretty strong consensus for process). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

   @Ian.thomson: Bbb23 was actually talking to me about new page patrol not long ago as well. It's easy make an occasional CSD criterion area, etc. Not my place to talk about deleting articles, but new page patrol, from my experience, just takes time and experience to understand all of the nuances and how to handle border-line cases, so don't feel discouraged or singled-out. --JustBerry (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Neutral (moved from oppose) I still don't like his answers about deletion but I am somewhat reassured by the further developments. Moreover I disagree with B's oppose. That was an excellent question Ian asked because it tested the candidate's ability to see the whole of a situation. BethNaught (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.