Ian.thomson's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 13:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC):[reply]

Overview:
First edit: Oct 15, 2006 18:15:21
User groups: reviewer, rollbacker, *, user, autoconfirmed
Unique Pages Edited: 11,860
Average edits per page: 2.95
Live edits: 34,993
Deleted edits: 2,439
Total edits (including deleted): 37,432
(Pie chart resemble live edits only)
Executed in 24.07 seconds.

Top 10 Most Edited Pages by Namespace:

    Live Only

Main

    Abraham — 166
    Cthulhu — 112
    Lucifer — 108
    Number of the Beast — 99
    Angel — 94
    Alchemy — 91
    Witchcraft — 86
    Spartacus — 82
    Satanism — 81
    Criss Angel — 77

Talk

    Jesus — 222
    God — 109
    Islam — 85
    Indigo children — 67
    Religion — 61
    Number of the Beast — 59
    Illuminati — 58
    Abraham — 52
    Historicity of Jesus — 52
    Zoroastrianism — 43

User

    Ian.thomson/Sandbox — 599
    Ian.thomson — 201
    Ian.thomson/CSD log — 176
    Ian.thomson/MeVsXians — 70
    Ian.thomson/Grafitti — 52
    Ian.thomson/PROD log — 30
    Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV — 16
    Ddndnfnd — 12
    Ian.thomson/Indigo children/For Indigos — 12
    Ian.thomson/adminship — 10

User talk

    Ian.thomson — 1034
    Doug Weller — 61
    Ian.thomson/Sandbox — 48
    Mike Rosoft — 39
    Charlesdrakew — 34
    Iotamikadoshi — 22
    Twillisjr — 21
    Jaredkunz30 — 18
    Sean.hoyland — 17
    Blackson — 16

Wikipedia

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents — 1082
    Administrator intervention against vandalism — 484
    Reference desk/Humanities — 470
    Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring — 270
    Reference desk/Miscellaneous — 222
    Reliable sources/Noticeboard — 142
    Village pump (policy) — 114
    Reference desk/Entertainment — 100
    Requests for page protection — 99
    Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard — 83

Wikipedia talk

    Articles for deletion/Hail Satan (book) — 25
    Identifying reliable sources — 12
    Sockpuppet investigations — 11
    WikiProject Religion — 9
    Image use policy — 7
    WikiProject Occult — 6
    Biographies of living persons — 5
    Reliable sources/Noticeboard — 4
    Flow — 3
    Tutorial — 3

File

    ABC Kids Logo.svg — 1
    Nick GAS.svg — 1
    Last Supper Drogheda.jpg — 1

File talk

    Man cover.jpg — 1
    Why eat bugs?.pdf — 1

MediaWiki talk

    Signature — 1

Template

    Bingo1 — 7
    Bingo3 — 6
    Religion and LGBT topics — 6
    Bingo2 — 5
    Bingo-entry — 3
    Hellblazer — 2
    Muhammad timeline in Medina — 2
    WikiFauna — 2
    SpongeBob SquarePants — 2
    Vinland — 2

Template talk

    Infobox person — 4
    My sandbox/doc — 1

Help

    Edit Conflict — 1
    Mobile access — 1

Help talk
    Mobile access — 1
Category
    Illuminati members — 2
    Goetic demons — 1
    Goetia — 1
    Wikipedia sockpuppets of GreatTruth123 <noinclude>— 1
    Wikipedia sockpuppets of Unavailable.undisclosed — 1
    Protocols of the Elders of Zion — 1
    Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Unavailable.undisclosed — 1
    Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GreatTruth123 — 1
    Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brad Watson, Miami — 1
    Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Andreas Balart — 1

Category talk
    Goetic demons — 3
    Islamic mythology — 2
    Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vanburrena — 1
    Start-Class Religion articles — 1
    Demons in Christianity — 1
    Monks by nationality — 1

Portal
    Islam/DYK/25 — 2
    Geography/Featured article/30 — 1
    Eastern Christianity/Intro — 1

Draft
    Ghosts of Venice — 1
    Google Pakistan — 1

Draft talk
    Ghosts of Venice — 2
    Nate Cunningham — 1

Question 12 on this RFA gave me a good laugh and I admire the candidate for answering it. Still a good candidate for this list, if it should be updated. The one that forgot (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) Attribution: see page history of RfA main page[reply]

My experience with him has been very different. I have been on the opposite side of several issues and he has handled himself well. I believe him to be "sufficiently po-faced and serious" and will make a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ret.Prof doesn't seem to have left his sandbox for months now and, before that, there was some fuss about bullying at Arbcom. If he has had good interactions with the candidate, please can he provide some details. I'm just going by my own brief sampling but require evidence rather than hearsay before I'd consider modifying my view. Andrew D. (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D.: Are you concerned that Ian will steal the keys to en.wiki and drive to Las Vegas and do dangerous drugs with a Samoan lawyer? BMK (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Let's ask the candidate... Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well now this oppose its merely farce. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be much to the "Mad Jack" aspect as the candidate doesn't appear to be any more gonzo than I am. But Ceoil's intervention is provocative. He seems so exercised that he follows me to an unrelated AFD so that he can contradict me some more and insult me for good measure. Perhaps this is just ornery belligerence as Ceoil seems to be lashing out today. Or is there some connection with the candidate - are they co-religionists, perhaps? The plot thickens so what would Mad Jack do now? I shall put some bagpipe music on and ponder... Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does your interactions with Ceoil have to do with this Rfa candidate?--MONGO 18:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my question. I don't recall having any previous interaction with Ceoil. Does the candidate? Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'm behind the times, I didn't realize that "interactions with Ceoil" were now grounds for opposing an RfA. Wait... are you implying that the candidate put Ceoil up to "followng" you and "contradicting" you? Is there anything behind that accusation except hot air? What if the candidate sent you a photo of himself looking sufficiently "po-faced", would you change your vote? Or maybe you're just put off usernames with "dots" in the middle, as opposed to at the end of the nick? BMK (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to take this off-topic discussion to the RfA talk page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, Liz, but I think the commentary is a legitimate reaction to the intrinsic silliness of the majority of the reasons Andrew D. gave for opposing.Also, buried in the comments is a veiled implication from Andrew D. of possible malfeasance on Ian.thomson's part, eg. "I don't recall having any previous interaction with Ceoil. Does the candidate?" after a description of Ceoil "following" and "contradicting" him. If Andrew D. has any proof of this I think he should provide it, or else stop making passive-aggresive accusations. BMK (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fear and loathing at RfA. What else is new... Kurtis ^(talk) 07:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kurtis' witticism is amusing and seems a good coda for that part of my oppose. If we can move on now, supporters should please address the next sentence of my oppose in which I comment on the candidate's activities in April. For example, I noticed that he is active at the Reference Desk. I generally disapprove of this as being contrary to WP:NOTFORUM and, from what I've seen, the candidate engages in OR there rather than simply directing inquirers to relevant articles. The reference desk also seems to be a source of conflict as editors bicker over the answers. The candidate indicated that he would use admin powers against some other editor that bothers him there. This plan seems contrary to WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was witty, wasn't it. Moving on, when i looked at his contributions (not April, as it happens) i did not see evidence of mis-marking edits as minor, those i looked at (and i looked specifically because you had mentioned it) were minor; edits at the Reference Desk don't cause me the same concern they appear to you, mostly because i see that location as an extension of the community we are; DGAF may have been expressed, but i don't really see it in the candidate's contributions. Your next sentence, moving on again, confuses me: Are you being funny, looking for admins to be po-faced and serious? I mean, serious about the project, but surely that isn't incompatible with a sense of humour? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a couple of examples of marking edits as minor when they seem to be substantial: Hatshepsut, Zeitgeist. As for being po-faced, what I mean by that is a polite, business-like, "just the facts, ma'am" demeanour. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is often marked as minor. That certainly applies to the first link. The second is a bit less clear-cut, but "deleted useless reference" as an edit summary by the IP is not very helpful and the removal of content almost seems like censorship. I'd have gone with a better edit summary when reverting. clpo13_(talk) 07:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I specified that I would deal with a troll that most refdesk users know about, not simply "someone that annoys me." I also specified in other answers that I would not use admin powers against someone who even just annoys me to avoid going against WP:INVOLVED. Trying to portray me as if I'm going to use my admin powers to carry out some sort of vendetta against any upstanding editor is a shameful fabrication (accidental or otherwise), and not the first assumption of bad faith you've made of me.

Please stick to what I've actually said instead of making more unevidenced accusations. If you have real evidence, present it. Otherwise, quit making up stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I avoid using the word "troll" because I once saw an editor indeffed for using it to describe another editor. I am not familiar with the person meant in this case as the candidate didn't provide any details. I did provide evidence of their intention to use the tools against this person; I was careful to provide a diff. Perhaps it would help if we were given more details. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a small sample of the troll's activities. To pretend that my promise to block that troll (there is no other word to describe that user) was somehow a threat to carry out some sort of vendetta against any upstanding is a gross failure of WP:AGF. Were I to make the sort of assumptions you're making of me, I would be asking if you think they shouldn't be blocked, or if you also support holocaust denial. But I know what WP:AGF means, so I'm not going to even seriously consider that.

You twisted my words, accidentally or otherwise. No one else even considered that a promise to quickly and quietly block an LTA troll is a threat to any upstanding editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Behavioral concerns related to the candidate should be conveyed on the candidate's talk page, where proper dispute resolution can take place. This is a RfA, not a fork of ANI/ArbCom. Esquivalience ^t 22:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion of the candidate's behaviour seems quite relevant to RfA. I am not myself at all familiar with them and so I take some samples. If these are exceptional or I should misunderstand them then discussion is helpful in clearing the air. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that it's important for someone to look for reasons that disqualify one from being an admin, you are making the sort of bad-faith-assuming accusations that, if they had any truth to them, would have resulted in me being site banned a long time ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know Andrew well enough from his work, particularly on London pubs and architecture, to know he does a lot of good stuff around here, but while he may not be deliberately trolling Ian, the net effect to readers is pretty much the same as trolling. Andrew, you're not convincing anybody else with your argument and all you're doing going to do is make somebody think "I wonder if an ANI thread proposing to topic-ban Andrew D from RFA is worthwhile", and I'm sure that's the last thing you want. Conversely, Ian, responding to oppose votes on RfA is a risky business, and you're now running the risk somebody might vote "Oppose - can't drop an argument when somebody disagrees with them". Please, everybody, let's draw a line under this now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposers are required to elaborate on their reasons for opposing and so it would be outrageous to describe such reasons as "trolling". If others don't like the detailed reasoning they are welcome to their opinion and they may submit !votes of their own. For avoidance of doubt, my position continues to be to oppose this nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]