Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Paine Ellsworth 12 13 10 48 19:55, 13 October 2015 6 days, 8 hours no report
Ian.thomson 121 8 3 94 02:58, 9 October 2015 1 days, 16 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 10:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
Supdiop RfA WP:SNOW 4 Oct 2015 1 13 4
Montanabw RfA Unsuccessful 24 Sep 2015 128 86 13
APerson RfA Unsuccessful 18 Sep 2015 61 33 8
Oshwah RfA Withdrawn 16 Sep 2015 28 19 5
Happy Attack Dog RfA WP:NOTNOW 16 Sep 2015 0 10 0
Wbm1058 RfA Successful 30 Aug 2015 121 17 3
Doniago RfA Withdrawn 22 Aug 2015 14 17 1

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to bureaucratic discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 10:56:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Paine Ellsworth

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (12/13/10); Scheduled to end 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) – I bring before the community User:Paine Ellsworth. A tireless, caring, and dedicated Wikipedian. Paine has been an editor for over 6 years now and has racked up a whopping 88,039 edits to his name! He has been trusted with Template Editor rights since 2013 and is very skilled at improving templates. I've encountered Paine many times when editing and categorizing redirects and sought his help and expertise on these matters. Paine is civil, and being a writer in RL, his grasp of English makes him an excellent communicator. His dedication to improving Wikipedia shines through on his lengthy workpage. His userboxes show varied interests including Astronomy, Electronics, Human Prehistory and Space Exploration! Paine Ellsworth is a helpful and pleasant individual. But above all else, he can be trusted with the tools, and that's what really matters. Because we need more admins, and quality, long-term, dedicated, and intelligent editors that actually WANT to be admins are hard to come by these days. Paine is all these things and more. œ 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


I had been considering Paine for a while as an excellent prospective candidate and while revisiting the matter again this morning, OlEnglish left the RfA notice on his talk page. I take that as a good sign that more than one of the admin corps have reached this decision. I find that Paine is level-headed, mature and calm which are all traits that we look for in our admins. He is a very adept editor and I feel that he will be an adept admin if given the chance. It is clear that he is dedicated to the project and will serve it well if given the mop.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I greatly appreciate both your supportive comments above. With highest regards I hope that I may live up to them as a project administrator! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talkcontribs) 14:31, 2 October 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: I would like to start small and learn as I go; however from what I've read, starting too small might not be an option. "Backlogs" and near-backlogs will be what pretty much drives my editing. I've worked on several, am working on some now and will find others to work on for which the tools of an admin are needed. It's "behind the scenes", which defines nearly all of my edits. I've spent a lot of time with redirect categorization, so I'll learn more about closing deletion discussions, especially at RfD and other discussion pages. And I'll check for fully protected edit requests to decrease the backlog and to work to keep the numbers from climbing again.
I've learned from my supporters that there are other areas, such as PRODs and CSDs, where I could have been doing more work as a non-admin. While I am definitely for the creation of good pages/articles on Wikipedia and the deletion of the bad things, these generally are not areas in which I've made a great deal of edits. That may change as I steep myself into Twinkle and its helpful tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've created articles, redirects, disambiguation pages, categories, an essay or two; the two articles I would call "best" are that for different reasons. The George Claghorn article I started from a red link in the Old Ironsides article, and very few other editors have contributed to it. On the other hand, James F. Thomson (philosopher) I began as a redirect and, through the efforts of several other editors, it has blossomed into a fine, still growing article. Some editors moan about how their improvements become squished over time by other editors. I see that in a different light: I make improvements and other editors come along and build on my work. That's the real beauty of this encyclopedia!
Just recently I completed a long-term project, of which I am way too personally proud. I updated all the redirect category (rcat) templates and their documentation, and I brought both rcat indices completely up to date. Again, this was very much out of public view, and I did appreciate the barnstar or two I received along the way.
I've used AWB to edit, and I do recognize its usefulness and that of bots under certain conditions; however, better still are those manual edits I've made. It is only while editing manually that one can be led to a sometimes long string of several articles/pages that need to be improved, pages that are missed by non-manual editing. Some of my best edits were those times when I made mistakes and was reverted by more experienced editors. I've learned a good deal about editing from the discussions that ensued. They've made me go back over my oldest contributions to make corrections based on what I know now vs. what little I knew then. I recommend that for everyone, because our contributions pages are a history of how we've evolved as editors.
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: Yes, in the course of my presence here I have several times been in conflict with other editors who felt that my edits were not improvements (or with vandals, some of whom were persistent). It is common in this environment for two or more people with only the improvement of Wikipedia in mind to disagree and lock horns. Civility rules. Since this is a form of volunteer work, and since I have grown to really like Wikipedia, I've endured little actual stress in those cases. I dealt with it by presenting my views, by listening to the views of other editors and by practicing forgiveness. At times my edits prevailed and other times they didn't, and all these instances were learning experiences in some way or another. It's the (rare) unwarranted personal attacks one must watch out for. Whatever happens one cannot take those too seriously, because most often they are just people trying to push your buttons and manipulate you. Those times when you do take button pushers seriously, then some time off is warranted and a very good idea. I feel it's important to listen carefully when others disagree with me. That's what can turn conflict and attempts at manipulation into consensus and improvement.
Additional question from Beyond My Ken
4. To what would you attribute the fact that 16 of the 51 articles you created have been deleted?
A: As can be seen by visiting that tools link you provided, several of the deletions were to make way for page moves, some had been redirects the targets of which had been deleted (housekeeping), and some were the result of community consensus to delete. In the "community consensus to delete" category there are several redirects from other languages to the Main Page that were needed when I created them, but due to software improvements they became unnecessary and were deleted. There were one or two with which I mildly disagree. Thank you for your question! Paine  (talk contribs)  22:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Additional questions from Mww113

I recognize that this is quite a bit, but I feel I must ask them before I can make a fully informed decision to support or oppose. I hope your answers to these questions may help those in the neutral column to make a decision, and will inform people who might be inclined to pile on in any column. Thank you for your time. Mww113 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

5. While some of the diffs provided in the oppose section do seem to be taken out of context, there are some that seem to be based on legitimate concerns. Particularly the first 3 diffs concerning the use of the term "red men" [1], the comment about Native Americans saying "they should realize that they are Americans first and Natives second" [2], and your use of the following: "GregJackP – you would like me to disappear from here, much like the old ex-Europeans wanted Native Americans to just "go somewhere else"? [3]" in a content dispute. Do you understand why some editors may find these comments offensive or objectionable? Would you be willing to apologize for any of those statements? And if you could go back in time knowing what you know now, would you still make those statements?
6. Recognizing that single diffs do not always tell the whole story, do you feel that there is any context or set of circumstances that would mitigate the seemingly problematic comments you've made?
7. Could you please explain why you removed the following from your talk page? [4]
8. You made the following statement on your talk page prior to its removal, "it's very difficult for me to be "racist" when NA blood flows through my veins, dear one." Do you believe it is possible for a person to make racist and/or offensive comments about a racial or ethnic group of which they are a member?
9. Given the recent nature of this conflict (August 2015), how would you assure the community that this incident does not reflect how you would behave if you were promoted?


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

  1. Support I have worked with Paine in several areas, primarily concerning redirects, and have always found him courteous, sensible, willing to listen and appreciative. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Easy support: helpful, trustworthy, courteous. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support - Highly active, trustworthy long term editor in good standing who has contributed much to the project. Reviewing the links provided, the first oppose and the ensuing ones appear to be fairly exaggerated, hyperbolic assessments based entirely around one heated conflict that the opposers found themselves in with the candidate. It seems unfair if not deceptive, given the candidates breadth of experience and involvement here; no effort is made to even attempt to demonstrate that it's a problematic behavioral pattern with this editor but instead less-than-ideal language and unpopular opinions are being twisted and exaggerated into flimsy accusations of racist motivations that seem unlikely and inflammatory given the editor's own self-identification of being partially Native American themselves. Not going to oppose based on one incident, though it seems people are gladly piling on anyway. Swarm 22:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. SUPPORT (in ALL CAPS!! mainly per Juliancolton's neutral.): Paine seems competent, and it appears that, per Swarm's reasoning, one of the main reasons for the oppose was due to one bad interaction. It is unfortunate to see oppose votes that are vengeful. These diffs show one bad incident out of many other, good interactions that Paine has no doubt had. Epic Genius (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per Swarm: I too recognize a grossly exaggerated "oppose" rationale when I see one and can read the diffs for myself. Those oppose voters should reconsider their misguided attempt to start pile-on opposition of this well-qualified, good-natured and mild-mannered candidate. Grudge votes are never pretty, and these appear to be particularly ugly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support. Paine Ellsworth is fully qualified. Blatantly vindictive oppose votes are typical of what brings the RfA process into disrepute and keeps candidates away. The totally exaggerated oppose theme is highly reminiscent of a sysop's attempt to derail my own RfA. The problem then, as it is now, is that later voters take it on face value without doing any research and simply pile on. I researched. I followed all the diffs. I see nothing particularly egregious in what is essentially a storm in a pipe bowl and I'm saddened to see a sysop at the root of it. AFAICS it's basically that typical Internet syndrome in which people deliberately look under every stone to see if they can find a cause to yammer abut being offended. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    Vindictive is a strong word, I read those same diffs and I see a valid point by those opposing based on them. What is worse this users response to complaints about the issue are a separate cause for concern. Trying to belittle other people's rational by accusing them of being vindictive or "piling on" is a poor debating practice. HighInBC 04:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Tentative Support – (moved from neutral) As brought up by Athomeinkobe in the neutral section, the first oppose by CorbieVreccan, which has been the crux of pile-on oppose shenanigans, was posted 7 minutes after the RfA was transcluded. This means the response was either crafted long in advance anticipating the candidate would seek adminship, or they were edit stalking (which is not in and of itself a bad thing) and pre-emptively created their response to—in my opinion—shut down the RfA as fast as possible. This seems very much like a personal vendetta after the two users butted heads and I certainly agree with Kudpung and Dirtlawyer1 in their statements calling the comments "vindictive". The analysis is inherently subjective and should not be used as a point of opposition without additional analysis beyond what is put forth on this page. I don't expect admin candidates to be perfect, we're all human. Editors will get into heated arguments at times and say things that rub people the wrong way. We're all guilty of it. Beyond the incidents involving CorbieVreccan, I don't see any major issues from this long-tenured editor that says they'll abuse the tools. Of course, I will be checking back to read the candidate's responses to the currently open questions as well as other ones put forth down the line. But as it stands I'm comfortable supporting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support per Swarm. One heated interaction and its accompanying sarcastic comments doesn't indicate a willingness to abuse the admin tools in my opinon. clpo13(talk) 06:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support per Dirtlawyer1 and Swarm HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  10. Very Strong Support Obviously a great editor and has more than enough experience. We need more admins like him. Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  11. Tentative Support It's unfortunate this RFA has been derailed by what is an apparent and recent content dispute with the first opposer. Reading the diffs provided, and taken as a single incident in a six year Wikipedia editing career, I see insufficient reason to oppose and lots of good reasons to support. If candidate has made poor choices of words in a heated disagreement, well, welcome to the club. If this process fails, I'd expect this otherwise qualified candidate to learn from the feedback given here and return after six months or a year. I'm awaiting responses to the questions posted by Mww113 above. BusterD (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support Looks like they will manage fine. The gripes in the oppose section below don't hold any water with me - that sort of stuff about one incident will not prevent them from doing the job properly, and as we all know, we need more admins. Rcsprinter123 (spill beans) 10:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. Strong Oppose - Ellsworth has a history of incivility and racial insensitivity (calling Native Americans, "red men":[5], telling Natives that "they should realize that they are Americans first and Natives second", that "full blooded" Native Americans are "long dead" and Natives now should "[rise] above the old ways"[6], as well as joking(?) about the genocide of other users' ancestors:[7].)
    I have seen him repeatedly misrepresent policy:[8][9][10][11]. My main experience of this user was on the Ceremonial pipe article, where Ellsworth edit-warred with admins and other experienced Wikipedians to repeatedly move a page against consensus, because he "liked the ring of"[12] an antiquated, colonial, and culturally-inappropriate article name: Page moves: [13][14]. Whole discussion here. Ellsworth also disrespected talk page etiquette, inserting his comments out of order into other discussions, throwing off the chronology, and reverted other editors who reconfigured for readability. When editors experienced with Native articles attempted to discuss his edit-warring with him, he doubled-down on the racial insults, comparing his losing a content dispute to the genocide of Native Americans:[15]. I don't know if he thought this was funny or what, but those sorts of racial insults do not belong on the 'pedia, and someone who behaves that way should not be an admin. He also attempted to hide these conflicts with, and warnings by, other editors by deleting the discussions from his talk page[16] with insulting edit summaries:[17]. While current WP consensus holds that individuals can remove things from their talk pages, this was again inflammatory behaviour and trying to avoid consequences for his disruptive behaviour.
    Paine has been repeatedly warned for disruptive editing, edit-warring, and racism. He repeatedly inserted content in the encyclopedia that describes Native Americans solely in the past tense,[18][19][20] which disappears contemporary Native peoples and cultures. He has edit-warred to preserve this racially insensitive content. His edits have focused on privileging outsider, colonial terms for Natives, Native sacred objects and ceremonies, and asserting that Natives only exist in the past and are best described by non-Natives.
    Initially I assumed it was just ignorance of Native issues. Then with the "red men" incident[21] it became clear he was either trying to be inflammatory, or is so out of touch with Indian country that he should be topic-banned from any page having to do with Indigenous people. See the state of his talk page[22] before he deleted it all:[23].
    It's problematic enough when regular users behave this way. Wikipedia has a systemic bias issue, and many non-white editors do not stay after dealing with treatment like this. We have been trying to increase racial diversity on WP, and I've seen editors leave after witnessing this stuff. For Ellsworth to have the extra buttons... I believe he would wheel war, bulldoze inexperienced users, and harm the community, as well as the reputation of the community. I do not trust Ellsworth's assessment of, or representation of, policy. I've found his demeanor of insults, followed by aggressively cheerful declarations, to be condescending and insulting, especially around racial issues. Wikipedia is not only for white people. I don't like having to do this but after what I've seen of his behaviour I am horrified at the idea of him being an admin. - CorbieV 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    CorbieV, I am very sorry that you continue to carry the burden of these feelings. And so much so that you would bring them to this process in such a powerful manner. I tend to see what happened in a very different light: You moved the page to an unsuitable title, then I reverted the move. Another editor again moved the article to an unsuitable title, then I again reverted the move. You did the right thing at that time and opened a move request. Your suggested move was again to the unsuitable title. As a result of my challenge and the help of other editors, the page was ultimately moved to a suitable title, and I am fairly sure that all editors in the RM discussion were satisfied with the final outcome, to include myself. Yes, there were some accusations and evident bad faith expressed; however, I do not remember any experience of incivility on your part in the discussion on the article's talk page. Since our viewpoints about that discussion are so out of phase, we will both have to leave it to others who read it to make up their own minds. Again, I am sad that you feel the way you do, and if there is anything I can do to make you feel better, then please let me know. Paine  (talk contribs)  20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Paine, you are doing yourself no favors by describing people's objections as based in feelings rather that accepting that they have reasons. It gives the appearance that they are acting on their emotions when that is not the case. There will be opposes, you may not agree with them but they are valid, nonetheless. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with you, Liz, I do have some tendency to relate what a person does to their "feelings" about the matter. However, that is a strong word, I should only use it sparingly if at all. Thank you for helping me to realize this weakness. I have many of those that I continue to try to strengthen. Paine  (talk contribs)  22:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. OPPOSE - I hate vague answers on Q3. Give me substance, give specifics--who did you have disputes with? how were they resolved? what did you learn from it? how specifically did you change your behaviors or tactics that led to the dispute? If you want to give a meaningless answer to the question, like yours above, you essentially ignore the meaning of the question. Apparently, CorbieVreccan has specific issues with your conduct, and alleges you haven't changed. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    JackTheVicar, it appears that CorvieV's unfortunate bad feelings are beginning to result in the "snow oppose" I've read about. I did not want my Q3 response to become tl;dr, and I realized that I would ultimately have to answer for my past conflicts here in this section. In that particular conflict I learned that there are still other editors, to include some admins, who will put aside the sensible policies and guidelines of this project, which often leads to incivilty. I'm sure you've probably already discovered the extended discussion that was brought to my user talk page for all my friends to see. Do you not find it interesting that such behavior did not lead to any editors taking any other editors to task before the community? I did not take them to task because to me, there is little that is more important than to forgive people for calling me names and falsely accusing me of hideous behavior. I still wonder why, if the other editors involved felt and feel so strongly about how "bad" they thought I was, then why didn't I have to face a community discussion at ANI or some other venue. Why wait until now, this moment to reopen a healing wound? Paine  (talk contribs)  21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Again, Paine, you avoid looking at your policy violations to repeatedly focus on "feelings." Either your hurt feelings, or the feelings you mistakenly assume others have. As I have stressed to you before, repeatedly, I don't think you are perceiving these interactions accurately, or representing them accurately. Especially when you try to derail policy issues to again accuse others of feeling or thinking things that are incorrect and irrelevant. This is a serious problem in any Wikipedian who deals with other users, but absolutely unacceptable in an admin. - CorbieV 21:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per CorbieVreccan. We should have little tolerance for racial insensitivity, especially when it comes to admins. RO(talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. STRONG OPPOSE Per CorbieVreccan. Paine also reverted me [24] on the same article as CorbieVreccan and I see that as part of a pattern of how Paine dealt with this particular content dispute. Later, Paine said "I took no action against the other editors" as if that were a noteworthy ethical decision[25]. I don't have any faith that he would handle the additional buttons responsibly. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    So sorry you feel that way, Pigman. I reverted your move in that title dispute because you had moved the page to the same unsuitable title to which CorvieV had moved it. That was proved by the ensuing move request. And you moved the page (boldly, as you said) while there was an ongoing title dispute discussion on the article's talk page. I still wonder why you did that. Why would you move a page, any page, while contention still existed? Paine  (talk contribs)  21:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Paine, you are, again, misrepresenting policy and WP consensus. When 3 out of 4 people agree on the page move, that is consensus. My "feelings" aren't a factor in the discussion. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 21:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per CorbieVreccan and my own experience with this user. Much as I hate to !vote "oppose" on anyone after my own RfA experience, this editor's behavior here and attitude here constitute a battlefield mentality and insensitivity to others that is troubling. I will note for the record that I had one set of reasonably positive interactions with this user here though I think the tone of his comment to Drmies is worth looking at, very similar to his tone above, and I for one, view it as rich with veiled sarcasm. (FWIW, I should also point out in Paine's favor that User:SeeSpot Run unfairly dragged Pain to the dramaboard and was later blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of ItsLassieTime, though I am not sure that Paine realized this, though he does deserve a nod for calling that editor on some of their behavior) Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I cannot support this candidate after reading the diffs provided by CorbieV. I want to note that I have never previously interacted with this editor to my recollection. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Strong oppose. First, the only reason I am commenting is because of the incredible racial insensitivity that he shows towards American Indians and those of Indian descent. I do not intend to return from retirement, and just about blew off making a comment here because I really don't care about what would happen to the Wikipedia community if he were to get the bit. The only thing that made me go ahead and comment is the fact that the entire world reads Wikipedia, and American Indian children do not need to be subjected to the racist positions that he takes, whether he does so in good faith or bad faith. I completely align myself with CorbieVreccan's position, above, in addition to my standard criteria on content creation. I will not reply further, this nomination needs to be quashed, hard. WP does not need admins bad enough that it should allow such a person to get the bit. GregJackP Boomer! 00:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Well yes, per CorbieVreccan. But, moreover, the response of the candidate to CorbieVreccan seems even more concerning per User:Liz's comment. In conjunction with that, the answer to Question #3 gives me the feeling that the candidate is fancied by over-sophistication with seemingly deeply rooted racial insensitivity and dangerous sarcasm. Also, I am not satisfied with the candidate's unspecific answer to Question #4, considering they have pointed out their inexperience with CSDs and PRODs. I would be concerned to see this candidate as admin right now, I'm sorry to say. --JustBerry (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - True, if a user requesting adminiship has a history of incivility, I cannot trust them to become an administrator especially if they are racist to other users --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose The diffs provided by CorbieV indicate to me that this person lacks the judgement and temperament to be an admin. Sorry. HighInBC 04:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    HIBC, "vindictive" is exactly the right word for several of the opposes above. "Hyperbolic" is another (Swarm's), and "exaggerated" (Kudpung's) is yet another. In most circumstances, I have the utmost respect for your opinion, HIBC, and that is why I urge you to carefully re-read the entire thread cited, in the the light most favorable to this candidate, as the reason for opposing this candidate. There was a lot of race-baiting going on, and damn little of it was by the candidate. It is a deplorable tactic to play the race card and accuse someone of "racism" in order to win what is essentially a good-faith content dispute, even more so when the argument is whether to title an article "calumet," "peace pipe" or "ceremonial pipe." It is even sadder to see when such transparent tactics are used to scupper the RfA for a well-qualified candidate and a long-time productive contributor of many years. I urge you to re-read, re-think and reconsider, my friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose The candidate gives George Claghorn as an example of his best work but this doesn't seem adequate, being more about the Constitution, than the subject. The lack of information about the subject is puzzling because the article links to sources such as this, which contain more details about this person. The candidate seems much happier creating redirects, which he does in large number. I'm not convinced of the utility of these. For example, I don't like relief (emotion). This seems disruptive in that it pushes the view that this is a dictionary topic and sends the reader off to the rival project of Wiktionary. It is actually quite easy to find sources such as the Encyclopedia of Emotion which demonstrate the notability of the topic, and so the redirect is something of a red herring. I accept the good faith nature of such work but would like to see it done more productively before endorsing them as an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I find the answers provided by the candidate to be too vague and rather evasive, especially considering the opposing evidence that's been highlighted here. This is an especial cause for concern when combined with clear instances (shown above) where policy has been ignored and the candidate has shown himself to be rather argumentative and prone to racist remarks. None of this suggests to me that this person has the right kind of temperament to perform the duties of an admin effectively. These instances of incivility and ignoring policy are especially concerning seeing as the examples highlighted are so recent and I agree with Liz's comment that he's not doing himself any favours with many of his subsequent responses to other users here, either. Ririgidi (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    Query for @Ririgidi: Could you please cite the instances of the candidate's "ignoring policy" with diffs and a brief explanation of the pertinent policies you believe were ignored? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - While I am less shocked by the substance of many of the diffs presented by Corbie V. than others are, it's pretty clear that the two of them are argumentative around one another. This is not necessarily a disqualifier, but it does put one ill at ease. For me it comes down to the question of why tools are being sought. "There are backlogs so I seek tools and will take it slowly and learn as I go." That's not the sort of rationale that many favor here, and with good reason. Far better: "I have been doing this and that and the other quasi-administrative task and I need tools to do the job better." The kicker for me is that Cullen/Jim is in the oppose column. He and Dennis Brown are my bell cows. I'll snoop around a bit more and may move out of here to neutral if I set myself at ease, but for now this is where I'm at on gut instinct. Apologies to the nominee, this process sucks emotionally and your efforts on behalf of WP are appreciated. Carrite (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. I was looking for more concise and specific answers to the first three questions. It's not the place for vague generalities and statements about editing philosophy are tolerated in moderation. Please identify specific areas where you need the tools and specific conflicts that you've had and, hopefully, resolved. I know you have thought a lot about this RfA but you shouldn't overthink your answers which should be straight and to-the-point. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    I must say that your comments in Talk:Ceremonial pipe#Requested move 19 August 2015 are not encouraging at all. Admins often have to make decisions based on consensus, not their own idiosyncratic view. Clearly the consensus of the participating editors was opposed to your position but you continued to dig your heels in because you didn't want the article title to change. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    I didn't want the page moved to an unsuitable title. While consensus is very important and one of the really crucial tools here, I took the stand that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that when the rationales were examined, it would yield that there was still contention and no consensus. True consensus did come about as the result of the RM, which was, I believe, satisfactory to all parties involved. Paine  (talk contribs)  22:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral. I don't really know Paine Ellsworth, but from what I have seen so far, I didn't find enough reason to support. However, as I don't really know the candidate, I will not oppose, either, unless I see something really negative. Epic Genius (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Relocated to support. Epic Genius (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral – The revisions linked by CorbieVreccan bring about some alarm, but I need to read through everything more thoroughly in context before deciding. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Moving to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. STRONG NEUTRAL to lodge my disapproval of the childish all-caps headlines in the above section. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I tend to not be moved by opposes stemming from content disputes, but I find myself deeply dissatisfied with Paine's responses to those opposes. They strike me as condescending and evading the issues, and so I cannot support. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Neutral for now: I don't want to immediately pile-on, but I need to research the diffs cited. Some of them do seem magnified. Esquivalience t 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Neutral for now. I am concerned by the diffs provided by CorbieVreccan, as an admin you must adhere to policies 100% and if you do not adhere to them then that can damage the encyclopaedia, especially if you refuse to appreciate others points of view. However, I need more time to look into those diffs. Also question 3 is too vague an answer as there are no diffs provided.--5 albert square (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, at least for now. Although the opposes raise cause for concern or at least for further investigation and thought, I am impressed by the support !votes and reasoning of Swarm and Dirtlawyer1. They give reasons for more review and further thought before a final decision. Their reasoning, and consideration of the overall contributions and demeanor of the candidate over the years, may be enough for a move to support. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I will sit here until I can make a definite decision. Jianhui67 TC 03:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Awaiting answers to Mww113's questions. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. Neutral now but I am leaning towards support. I suspect there are going to be a hundred questions asked this week, so I will wait to see the candidate's answers. On a completely unrelated matter, I noticed that the first oppose vote was saved 7 minutes after the RFA was transcluded. I wish I could locate diffs and type that fast. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, Athomeinkobe, pardon me for gently correcting you, but the first "oppose" vote and rationale were posted 12 (not 7) minutes after this RfA was transcluded [26]. In any event, that editor is either a very gifted typist and diff researcher or, as seems more likely, was preparing their 5700-character, 19-diff "oppose" rationale well in advance of this RfA going public. And, yes, I do believe that bears on whether there is an unseemly level of animus ("vindictiveness") behind that !vote and rationale. It's certainly something for others to consider, as we examine the motives and conduct of the various parties to this tempest in a pipe bowl. I've spoken my piece for now, and shall gladly share the chanunpa with any who care to join me in the waiting room. The smoking lamp is lit. Face-smile.svg Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    I was looking at the time it became visible on the main RFA page Dirtlawyer1. [27] But what's 5 minutes between friends? Anyway, regardless of whether it is 7 minutes or 12 minutes, the main thing is that it is 2 billable units! ;) So where's this waiting room you mention? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    Come on over to my talk page, AHIK, I always appreciate an honest person with a sense of fairness and good humor. Billable units are on me. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  10. Neutral – Those in the support column make valid points about claims from opposers possibly being exaggerated, but those in oppose do raise some legitimate concerns. (The ones that are not pile on). I'll have to wait for the candidate to answer my questions before I feel I can make a fully-informed decision. Though this does appear to only be one incident, it was recent and does raise some questions for me. Mww113 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
General comments


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (121/8/3); Scheduled to end 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


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 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. Face-smile.svg --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)

General comments

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


  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 (talkcontribs) 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  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, LindsayHello 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 :). –Davey2010Talk 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. Mkdwtalk 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. Ayub407talk 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. Begoontalk 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talkcontribs) 14:02, October 6, 2015‎ (UTC)
  110. Jianhui67 TC 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  111. Support: Handles self well in difficult arenas, great editor. ScrpIronIV 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 Ponyobons 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)
  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. (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. Face-smile.svg 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 [28]. --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)
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? Face-smile.svg 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. Face-smile.svg --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)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages