Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ivanvector

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

Ivanvector

Final (213/6/0); Closed as successful by ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! at 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Ivanvector (talk · contribs) – Friends, Wikipedians, editors, lend me your ears – I come to praise Ivanvector and nominate him for administrator. Ivanvector has been an editor for more than seven years. He's a friendly Canadian who has woven himself deeply into the fabric of our project.

I'm a pretty new CheckUser. Since I was entrusted with this powerful tool, I've come to appreciate and stand in awe of the SPI clerks. Ivanvector is one of the most awesome. He takes the time to investigate carefully, and he is not afraid to change his mind when confronted with evidence or strong arguments. That's such an invaluable character trait when doing these behavioral investigations. I trust his judgment.

We need more SPI clerks, and we desperately need more who are administrators. As I write this, we have 77 open SPI cases. At one point last week, we had more than 100 open cases. Most of them are duck cases or for IP addresses only, where CheckUser is either not needed or not allowed per policy. Since Ivanvector is not an admin, he cannot block IPs or do the history merges that are sometimes required for overlapping cases. This is the hard work our clerks do. They pore through contributions, they analyze behavior, they make recommendations, and they keep our lives sane.

Here I am to speak what I do know: my heart is in this RFA with Ivanvector. Though I will not pause my work until he becomes an administrator, I urge you all to exercise your reason and support his candidacy. No Shakespeare scholars were injured in the formation of this statement. Katie^talk 11:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Samwalton9

I'm proud to be co-nominating Ivanvector for the administrator user right, albeit not quite as poetically as a certain nominator above. Katie has done a great job of presenting an overview of Ivanvector's many merits at SPI, so I'd like to focus on convincing you that he's unlikely to break any other areas of Wikipedia!

With over 16,000 edits to his name, Ivanvector has done at least enough of everything the community has come to expect from a good admin candidate for me to be confident that he'll make a fine administrator. He's written a number of articles on assorted topics (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]), has a solid CSD log, and a varied and accurate AfD history. A perusal of Ivanvector's AfD votes that didn't match the discussion consensus shows a combination of well reasoned arguments or even withdrawn votes.

Ultimately, Ivanvector is a civil and productive editor who I believe would be an even greater asset to the encyclopedia than he already is if given the administrator toolset. Sam Walton (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Ritchie333

Now I'm not going to start with all that waffle about "ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to blah blah blah" (this is RfA, not your local county cattle fair) ..... I have seen Ivanvector being helpful on Wikipedia in numerous areas, and after he filed an optional candidate poll in October, complete with "aren't you an admin already?" comments, I thought I'd take a closer look.

He's a good all rounder working in all sorts of areas; regular participation in Redirects for discussion, a respectable AfD and CSD log, writing articles such as Ashbridge Estate and Old Princetown Road, and handling sockpuppet investigations (including being recently appointed as a SPI clerk). But most importantly, he's got a track record of handling difficult situations and disputes in a calm and civil manner.

It's good to have a candidate who can do a bit of everything; so I'm happy that someone suitable has stepped up to the plate. In particular, I have criticised our sockpuppetry policies and processes in the past, so for me to put forward someone who takes a particular interest in this area should be taken as a ringing endorsement of his abilities. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Mkdw

I offered to nominate Ivanvector during his ORCP in October and I am honoured to have that opportunity now (albeit redundantly). I've worked together with him over the past two years at WP:SPI. We went through what had to be the longest SPI clerk training process in Wikipedia history as well as dozens of cases following. Ivanvector has been someone that has consistently impressed me; He takes the process seriously and sees things through to the end. He is not shy to express his opinions even if they are in conflict with others but is also willing to discuss and adapt in a situation. Ivanvector is thorough and often takes the time to go beyond the presented evidence to investigate situations which has in some cases revealed much more serious or extenuating circumstances.

In addition to the many other metrics the other nominators have highlighted, I strongly believe that Ivanvector has character to be a terrific administrator. My only regret is what took him so long! Mkdw^talk 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: with great thanks to my nominators and many users who have offered support and advice in this process, I am pleased to accept. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:02, 21 December 2016 (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: As a sockpuppet investigations clerk, I would be using the tools in reviewing SPI cases: blocking sockpuppets of course, but also reviewing deleted contributions and performing merges on misfiled cases, all of which I ask and wait for an admin to do presently. Of the 61 cases open at SPI at this moment, 10 have been fully investigated and only need an admin to act, but there are also a handful more that haven't even been reviewed, partly because doing so involves reviewing deleted contributions. I would like to help out at RfD, where I've been a frequent contributor and have closed discussions within the non-admin closure rules. After I build some experience with the tools I'd like to help out at the anti-vandalism admin forums like AIV and RFPP, with the speedy deletion criteria that I'm familiar with (I'm admittedly not familiar with all of them), and with closing requested move discussions.

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

A: I'm not a prolific article creator, but of the few that I started I'm most proud of Old Princetown Road. My wife and I went on a drive one day and she remarked that she'd never been down this one red dirt road off the main highway on PEI that you can see over a hill from a few miles away, so we drove along until it ended abruptly, and then walked for a bit along the dirt trail that continued. When I looked up the drive later I found that this little dirt road formed a straight but broken line of roads tens of miles long leading directly into Charlottetown, and parts of it were called "Old Princetown Road"; the "old" triggered my inner history nerd. It turns out it's a historically significant colonial trail that's mostly forgotten, so I decided to write about it. Finding sources involved citing decades-old newspapers and a 135-year-old road atlas. It's not a terrific article by any means, but there's a personal story behind it for me and it has led me into improvements to other local topics, and I think that that sort of progression is what makes Wikipedia great.

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: I've been in a few conflicts, as you'd expect from an editor with a few years' experience. Over the last year I was involved in two big disputes: over the proper title for the Kim Davis (county clerk) article, and a POV dispute at R v Elliott. In both disputes I was accused of misconduct: a personal attack in one and conflict of interest in the other, and in both cases I tried to address my accuser's concern in civil fashion (and self-reported at COIN for an outside check in the latter case). At the same time I tried to steer the conversation back towards addressing the dispute. Although these disputes can be stressful, each one is an opportunity to check how your understanding of policies and guidelines lines up with those of editors with many diverse backgrounds, and I find those sorts of interactions fascinating. What I've learned most of all is that it's incredibly important to assume good faith and be respectful of editors with whom you disagree, even if they are not civil themselves, but being respectful and polite does not mean backing down. It is true that sometimes you simply can't reason with an editor who disagrees, in which case all you can really do is (politely) make your case and move on. When I find myself getting stressed and need to take a break, I do gnomish things around the project like filling in references or disambiguating links, or just step away from the computer and do something else.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional Question from UNSC Luke 1021

4. Here's my infamous question, according to certain admins: What WikiProjects are you an active member of, and how would you, as an administrator, help smaller WikiProjects, with a lot to offer, get noticed? This counts as both of my questions.Prepare for backlash UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 00:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

A: I hope you don't mind I renumbered this to Q4 for clarity. I list some WikiProjects I've participated in on my user page, they include WikiProject Cycling and WikiProject Redirect, although if I think about my recent activity I'm more active in WikiProject Canada Roads and the semi-active WikiProject Prince Edward Island. I regularly seek input from many WikiProject talk pages about various issues, especially at RfD, because they are great resources for seeking expert input. In the past I've helped to promote projects by adding project banners to article talk pages, and suggesting projects to users whose interests seem to align. Years ago I helped to get Article Alerts added to the Accounting task force, which at the time was complicated for a sub-project. Of course none of this requires special userrights, and to be honest I'm not sure what tools an administrator might have at their disposal to increase a WikiProject's exposure. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional Question by Class455

5. You see the following usernames around and at AIV/UAA. What do you do?

• JoeBloggs03
• Tower Hamlets Council
• Messi10fan01
• Davey2011
• ASLEF Union
• Class455 should retire
• TheWikipediaVandal
• South West Trains
• Woodcotegardencentre
• British Airways A380
• Clashroyalepedia
• Planmyfirm

A: I'm assuming you mean UAA, since to review these accounts listed at AIV I would need to see examples of their theoretical contributions, and I'm also assuming that these are reasonably new accounts. Feel free to ask a follow-up if I've misinterpreted.

• JoeBloggs03: the name "Joe Bloggs" is a common placeholder name, and in fact is one we use as a placeholder in some of our policies; the one I know of off-hand is WP:RFD#D3. There are a few registered accounts with similar names, including Joebloggs3, but none with more than a handful of edits and none that have edited inside the last 5 years. Not a WP:USERNAME violation based on the information available.
• Tower Hamlets Council: implies shared use as a shared account of the town council of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Would block and advise with {{uw-ublock}}. I'm aware that there are "softer" templates but ublock is the only one I know of which also includes simple instructions for choosing a new username.
• Messi10fan01: nothing inherently wrong with being a fan of Lionel Messi, but would evaluate their edits for undue promotion.
• Davey2011: possibly an attempt to impersonate user Davey2010. Would check with Davey2010 first to ensure it's not his WP:DOPPELGANGER, and if not then would suggest the user choose a different username. Would block immediately if it's clear they are impersonating.
• ASLEF Union: as with Tower Hamlets Council, implies shared use by Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. Would treat the same.
• Class455 should retire: would check with you that you didn't create this account as a doppelganger; if not then would block as somewhere between a trolling account and a personal attack. I may also follow up with you to see if it's worth investigating for sockpuppetry, as in my experience users who go out of their way to create trolling usernames like this are often serial multiple-account abusers.
• TheWikipediaVandal: would block if actually a vandal. If not obviously a vandal, I think the name is unlikely to mislead a user into thinking this is an official WMF account, but I would suggest that the user choose a different name to avoid problems in the future.
• South West Trains: implies shared use by the company South West Trains; would treat the same as Tower Hamlets Council and ASLEF Union.
• Woodcotegardencentre: implies shared use by Woodcote Green Garden Centre, and would treat the same as the other shared use usernames here.
• British Airways A380: this username doesn't inherently imply a promotional account, and might just be a fan of the Airbus A380. Not a WP:USERNAME violation, but would review for undue promotion.
• Clashroyalepedia: a username possibly related to Clash Royale, but doesn't imply shared use or promotion on its own, could just be a fan. Would review the user's edits for undue promotion, and even then I don't this can be considered a WP:SPAMNAME.
• Planmyfirm: possibly related to a UAE-based investment portal, but I would have to rely on the account's edits to determine if a SPAMNAME block is warranted.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from AlexEng

6. You see a user (assume the author) moving a draft into mainspace. After looking at the draft, you see that it's an exact copy of another article, with only the name and LEADIMAGE changed. What do you do?

A: I edit-conflicted with the debate going on here but I had started working on a response to the hypothetical situation anyway, so I'm glad you've rephrased. I have answered with the assumption that the user is fairly new, not someone who's been here for nearly ten years, but more on that below. There are many possibilities here and I apologize that this response is long.

• First, I would check the recent history of the original article for evidence of an ongoing content dispute, and if I suspected that the copied article was intended to be one of the unacceptable types of content fork (say, if it was a clearly related and POV title) I would redirect to the copied article, and advise the user that such forks are not allowed. If the title met WP:RNEUTRAL then I would leave it and categorize it, if not I may delete it or list it for discussion at RfD.
• If the creation seems innocuous, perhaps the user has copied the content with the intent of reusing the layout in their own article, especially if all they've done so far is retitle and add a photo of a different person. This action fails WP:CWW (or I assume for this response that they did not properly attribute) and if the copied article is about a living person then also probably violates WP:BLP (it did in your previous example). I would ask the user if this was their intent, and if so then I would blank the attributable portions of the article (anything that meets the "creative expression" guideline), and then move the page back to draft space without leaving a redirect and allow them to work on it; I don't think that this situation warrants revision deletion.
• A third possibility is they created the article with the intent to improve it and then copy their improvements to the main article, in which case I would simply move the article to their sandbox or a subpage of their user space and advise them, though in this hypothetical case that seems highly unlikely since they renamed the article and uploaded a different image. I have encountered that situation before, where a user with a visual impairment was copying articles to their user space to improve them because it was more convenient with their screen reader, and they regrettably left the project due to other users hounding them about it.

If the author was indeed a user with ten years' tenure, I would have to assume they know what they're doing and would just ask them what they're up to, and go from there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from RileyBugz

7. How would you deal with an erroneous edit by a new editor?

A: I have to make some assumptions about your question, as there are several ways to define "erroneous". I've also assumed that the edit is isolated, and not on a frequently vandalized page or one that is under discretionary sanctions, for example.

• If the edit is factually incorrect: I would have to evaluate whether the edit is a good-faith error, or a deliberate attempt to add untrue information (whether vandalism, hoaxing, or pushing a non-neutral point of view), and that will involve reviewing the editor's recent edits. The approach in all three cases is to revert (we don't want incorrect information in the encyclopedia) but then to leave an explanatory notice (probably {{uw-unsourced1}} or a personalized note) in the first case, and a warning in the second (a level 2 such as {{uw-error2}} or escalating depending on severity). Ideally, assuming good faith and helping new editors get through our sourcing guidelines is enough to encourage them to become quality contributors, but there is a limit to how much time one should spend coaching a user who obviously isn't interested in learning, and although I'm probably more lenient than many in this regard I would not hesitate to use blocks to prevent ongoing disruption from such an editor. (See Wikipedia:Competence is required.)
• If the edit is reliably sourced but contradicts other reliably sourced information in the article, then it's complicated, isn't it? I would need to review the sources, and if everything checks out then I would open a discussion on the article's talk page about the new addition, and invite editors familiar with the topic to discuss. I may or may not participate in the discussion myself, depending on my own knowledge of the topic and my availability.
• If the edit is incorrectly formatted but not otherwise problematic, I would fix it if it were obvious what the intent was (like forgetting to close a ref tag, or creating a table where the columns don't line up), and then I would leave a note for the user explaining what they did wrong and how I fixed it, and to ask for help if they need it. If I can't figure out what they were trying to do, I would revert the edit, and leave a note with {{uw-test1}}, which already directs the user to contact me if they need help.
• Lastly, if the edit is blatant vandalism, like they replaced the entire content of an article with just the word "poop", I would block immediately and revert, per WP:DENY. Some users might give a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning but to be honest I don't see the point of spending the time on editors that are obviously just here to disrupt. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not entertain trolls.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from RileyBugz

8. Would you help with people that need sources for an article?

A: Oh yes, absolutely, I think this is an activity that all long-standing editors should make an effort to do, you don't need to be an administrator to help with sourcing. I'm not an expert at all in finding sources other than a few niche topics I'm close to, and I'm alright at Googling things, but my usual approach to this is to direct a user to the resources available at an appropriate WikiProject, or even just leave a note for that WikiProject's talk page to help an editor out or take a look at their work to recommend sources or general improvements. There's a recent-ish example of this in my talk archives and another user's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Hmlarson

9. In many Internet communities, including Wikipedia, tolerance for abusive language and troll-like behaviour from participants has been tolerated and is often named as a factor for low participation rates by women, people of color, and LGBT people.1 What are your general thoughts on this issue and what do you think an editor with admin rights should do when harassment has occurred?

Thank you for this excellent question. I apologize that I'm unable to give this serious issue the time it deserves in response at the moment, but please expect my answer shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A: Apologies again for taking so long to answer this question, it was my intent not to rush it and I have been unavailable over the last half a day or so. The short answer is that administrators must take claims of harassment seriously and not hesitate to investigate, and to act if harassment has occurred, because these actions cause immediate and long-lasting damage to the community. Blatantly abusive language ought to be treated as a bright-line WP:NPA violation, especially when intended to abuse a marginalized group (such as gendered insults targeting editors who identify as female). We must also be more open to identifying patterns of long-term harassment on- and off-wiki, as users who have been subject to it will likely tell you it does not all happen in some short time limit, and often persists for months or years before anyone here is willing to do anything about it. Some editors attempt to rationalize such behaviour, for example suggesting that it "wasn't meant as an insult" or "was warranted because of other actions" or "wasn't that serious"; this is wrong, we must not tolerate this behaviour at all, no matter its possible innocence. Blocking is not necessarily prescribed: we have many editors from cultures which are less generally tolerant than the Wikipedia community must be, and this often can be successfully explained and overcome without blocking, however we must be willing to protect editors from abuse, by blocking if necessary. It is not properly addressed by ignoring it.

Understand of course that this answer is coming from the perspective of a middle-aged Anglo-Saxon man of moderate means in a predominantly Anglophone part of the world, thus my perspective on this issue is severely privileged. Wikipedia's quality and breadth of coverage (and long-term viability) are dependent on attracting many perspectives, yet we consistently fail to retain editors from marginalized groups. There has been a great deal of writing on this topic (e.g. the article you posted, The New York Times, Sue Gardner's blog, our own article on Wikipedia's gender bias and our Gender gap task force) and one factor consistently identified is the social environment on Wikipedia: as you aptly put it, abusive and trolling behaviour. There is a phenomenon on the internet of individuals who make it their interest to actively harass marginalized persons and groups; it's outside the scope of this response to pontificate on why that is. Naturally, Wikipedia is susceptible to the activities of these individuals, yet the community must combat this harassment whenever we identify it if we want Wikipedia to be a tolerant space for less-privileged editors, which we do because otherwise those editors will simply leave, and Wikipedia will not improve. We've made some progress: just in being aware that the problem exists we're better than many websites. We have a harassment policy, over time we've corrected problematic jargon (and other times failed to do so), we briefly tried an experiment in creating a safe discussion venue for women, however in many ways Wikipedia does function as an "old boys' club" in that we like to do things the way we've always done them, and we resist change. We must do better at listening to suggestions for improvements especially when they come from the marginalized editors themselves.

I think I should stop here before I ramble too much, and I hope this addresses your question. If I can expand on something more specifically, please feel free to follow-up without regard to the two-question limit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough response. My one previous interaction with you during my first and only SPI contribution (was deleted) unfortunately reflected quite the opposite experience of what you describe, so it's good to know where you stand publicly. When you write, "We must do better at listening to suggestions for improvements especially when they come from the marginalized editors themselves", I think of the case of Bring Back Daz Sampson. Instead of deleting other editors' traces of harassment and going along with silencing an editor who makes quality contributions but has had to repeatedly deal with continual harassment and troll-like behaviour, investigate the claims. Listen - as you wrote above. I realize the majority of your work is likely much more cut and dry w/ sockpuppetry and greatly appreciated by the Wikipedia community - but in this case your actions did not match the words you so eloquently responded with above. Thanks for listening. Hmlarson (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I remembered that case when you posted your question. We do need to be mindful of editors responding in frustration because they are being subject to harassment, it does say so in the policy: [i]t is important that any allegations of misconduct about someone who is being harassed be considered in this context. However, it goes on to say, [s]uffering real or perceived harassment does not justify an editor's misconduct, but a more cautious approach to sanctions in such situations is preferred. My interpretation is that we ought to be lenient and of course we have a duty to investigate claims of harassment, but we don't give an unlimited free pass to a harassed editor to respond in whatever destructive pattern they choose (like reverting another editor "hundreds of times"), and nor is it productive to encourage a harassed editor to evade a block. If you recall, I tried to offer help to this editor, but they thumbed their nose at my suggestions. I can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"encourage a harassed editor to evade a block" : what an interesting choice of words while "listening" and "being mindful of editors responding in frustration because they are being subject to harassment". Hmlarson (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: You may be interested to read User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful; also I have seen cases where the sockpuppetry process is akin to harassment and abuse (e.g.: User talk:JoanneB123). I have been threatened with the removal of my tools for not "towing the party line" and thinking for myself over what the net disruption (if any) is. I am sure Ivanvector shares these values. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Can you clarify which specific values you think Ivanvector shares with you? "thinking for myself over what the net disruption" or "towing the party line"? If the former, can you provide diffs to demonstrate? Hmlarson (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thinking for yourself over applying rules. It's WP:IAR in a nutshell. Andy Dingley's support has some suitable and appropriate diffs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

• Edit stats added to talk page. --QEDK (愛) 20:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nominator. Mkdw^talk 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Overdue. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - passes the ironclad "I thought he already was one" test. bd2412 T 00:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Zero concerns from me. -- ferret (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - Vouching for him too, given his experience and whatnot. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - With his experience in SPI, he would undoubtedly be an asset with the tools and the community would benefit significantly by granting them to him. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Support From what I've seen at ANI and RfD Ivanvector has shown not only excellent judgement but also the right temperament and responsibility. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
9. To mop, or not to mop, — that is the question: —/ Whether 'tis nobler of an editor to suffer / The slings and arrows of prolific sockers, / Or to take up tools against a horde of vandals, / And by opposing end them?
   Seriously, though, support. I've seen Ivanvector doing good work at SPI and the wide array of nominators are convincing.
   My adminship anniversary being yesterday, a little advice: foul is not fair, and though uneasy grow the hands that bear the mop, none of woman born shall harm you. (That should get the Bard rotating in his grave. Oops...) 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Support as nominator. Katie^talk 00:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
11. Enthusiastic Support. Their record seems to check pretty much all the boxes on my "what I look for list" and I am particularly impressed with their record at SPI. The large number of heavy weights joining in the nomination is the icing on the cake. While I have not done a forensic examination of their editing history I would be extremely surprised if there were anything in there that would give cause for concern. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
12. Support Ivanvector's been doing a lot of good work for the project for a while now. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
13. Support an excellent candidate. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
14. Strong Support No concerns and an excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

    Upgraded support based on the answer to #9. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

15. Support - Yup. Will be an asset with the mop. Clean logs, nice diversity in tasks. Nicely done nominators. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
16. Support Excellent nomination statements, apart from a candidate who has quite some experience. Lourdes 01:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
17. Support - An asset to the project, quite clearly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
18. Support - Looks good for a chipmunk fondler. SlightSmile 01:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
19. Support Don't even have to research this one, Ivanvector is an obvious net positive. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
20. Support: SPI clerking shows a clear need for the tools. Strong candidate. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
21. Support: I've been observing Ivanvector's activities for a good while and wondered why we hadn't seen this yet. Qualified. Risker (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
22. Strong support: Thoughtful, skilled, pleasant editor who does great work at SPI (and could really use the tools!) GAB^gab 01:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
23. Support: Have seen them around occasionally. Just enough content creation work to show they understand what it takes, lots of clue at AfD and works in SPI. Four co-nominators? Give them the mop already... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
24. Support wholeheartedly. I've interacted with Ivanvector for a long time at RfD, and I've always thought he's had thorough knowledge of relevant policies, and is willing to engage in debate with sane, rational and insightful arguments. We've sparred occasionally (RfD is a silly place) but he's convinced me to take his position in a debate numerous times; the number of times I've written "per Ivanvector" at RfD probably number in the thousands. I've long wondered why Ivanvector hadn't already run an RfA, and I am pleased to support. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
25. Support Yay!! I offered to co-nominate, but I guess you have enough of those :) No hesitation in supporting here. This is long overdue — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
26. Support Clearly qualified to receive the mop; no apparent issues. Joshualouie711 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
27. Support - Great candidate. Great noms. Great answers. I've also had the good fortune to work with this editor a little bit. Would be a welcome addition to admin corps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
28. Oppose as being overqualified and having too many noms. Woops, I mean... Support. Actually, this candidate is so well-qualified as to be almost overqualified. SPI and beyond: a solid track record and clearly a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
29. Support - Waaaaay long overdue! - Should've been given the bit many moons ago, Anyway clearly an excellent candidate and a NETPOSITIVE to the project, I see no issues neither. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
30. Support. My interactions with Ivanvector have been nothing but positive, I expect he'll be a great admin. Daß Wölf 02:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
31. Support - good candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
32. Support This seems to be a very easy decision to make. In what is sure to be a sea of support, however, I'll just mention that three co-nominations almost feels like the RFA equivalent of WP:OVERLOAD WP:OVERKILL. While it doesn't change my views on the candidate at all here, in other instances it may have had a negative impact. KaisaL (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
33. Support. Highly qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
34. Support. I think he'll be a mighty fine admin. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
35. Support – a qualified candidate, and would seem to take the time to learn anything outside their comfort zone.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
36. Per the excellent co-noms. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
37. Support: From what I've seen in this user's work with Sock puppet investigations, I think they can be trusted to be a good admin. Feinoha ^Talk 03:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
38. Support, per nom TJH2018talk 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
39. Support - Well qualified candidate who will be able to make good use of the tools. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

    Examples: special:diff/755568725, special:diff/754780287, and special:diff/754438598 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

40. Strong Support - Qualified, experienced, editor. J947 03:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
41. support overdue, yes. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
42. Support. Like the charm in Q2. Glrx (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
43. Support great editor. Will make good use of the mop. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
44. Support Well, I was going to oppose for too many co-noms, but someone beat me to that joke, so never mind ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
45. Support - I regularly interact with Ivanvector at redirects for discussion and occasionally elsewhere. The opinions they express are well thought out, nicely articulated, and generally based on guidelines and policies (when applicable). I very seldom get involved with anything related to sockpuppet investigations, as I don't care for it, but I commend those who do so in a clerking or administrative capacity because it is necessary. Their editing history is adequate, and I trust that they will use good judgement when wielding the mop.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
46. Support not already an admin? Colour me surprised. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 04:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
47. Support. Looks like a fine candidate to me. Expecting a support snow storm. Yintan  04:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
48. Support. Ivan is one of those editors I keep assuming is an admin already. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
49. Support I wouldn't normally support a candidate whose article space edits comprise a mere 31.5% of his edits overall, but I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt based on what I've seen of him so far. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
50. Seen him around for some time. Sensible. Well qualified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
51. Support Experienced editor. FITINDIA (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
52. Support. I particularly appreciate Ritchie's note about SPI (even if he wants to take all county cattle fair fun out of RfA!) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
53. Support WP:NETPOSITIVE. Eric-Wester (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
54. Support easy one — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
55. Support. He's mature and well-qualified. This will allow him to be of even more help at SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
56. Support - I would be happier if the nom had more content edits, but in light of the fact that this is one of the few times I can truthfully say "I thought you were an admin", I see no reason they shouldn't get the bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

    One small comment: I've noticed in some of Ivanvector's interactions a bit of a tendency towards black-or-white thinking, which can be detrimental to the spirit of WP:IAR, Certainly, in areas like countering vandalism, there's little wrong with this, but IV should give some consideration to allowing good faith editors some leeway, and not stand so firmly on the strict letter of the law. I'm sure this is something he will find out after a bit of time as a working admin: sometimes the grey areas are to be preferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

57. Support, overdue. --joe decker^talk 05:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
58. Support. It is thrilling to finally see an admin candidate that I am familiar with. Through this familiarity, I can say he is an excellent candidate. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
59. Four highly-respected nominators? No red flags and expertise at SPI? This is a definite support. Lepricavark (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
60. Support, easy decision. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
61. Oppose too many nominators Support as NeilN said, easy decision. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
62. Support. I have had the pleasure of interacting with Ivanvector at WP:RfD over the last year or so, and I have always found Ivanvector to be a kind, thoughtful, conscientious, and courteous editor. I have no doubt that they will make an outstanding admin. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
63. Support. I realise this sounds clichéd, but I thought he already was one. I admit that the number of co-nominators does look unusual, but I don't believe that all four could be wrong. Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
64. Support, obviously. His work at SPI alone qualifies him for the mop many times over. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
65. support without reservation. Fantastic contributor and respect his approach to the Kim Davis controversy of which I was party to. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
66. Support With four nominations there's very little left to say -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
67. Support, long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
68. Support positive interactions with this user in the past have shown a level head and a responsible demeanour. Ivanvector will be a safe pair of hands wielding the mop. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
69. Support not a question. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
70. Support. No issues, easy decision. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 07:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
71. I don't think I've interacted directly with this editor, but I recognize him from his occasional forays into DRV and mine into RFD. His comments at each have been consistently sensible. —Cryptic 08:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
72. Support- Great candidate, and the answer to Q5 means he shows good thinking when coming to UAA. I've also seen Ivan around at AIV, and he is ready to receive the mop! Good luck! Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 09:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
73. Support. Whoa, all we need now is E to make it the best RFA Christmas in recent memory - very easy support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
74. The Support Before Christmas per WP:NETPOSITIVE. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 11:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
75. Support. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 11:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
76. Support - Sweet. Lets give him a go --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
77. Support – I honestly thought he was already an admin. Graham87 12:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
78. Support - Add me to the "I thought he was one" camp. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
79. Support he will be a net positive]. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) ^{Happy Holidays} 12:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
80. Support - An excellent candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
81. Support: No issues to deal with, will make a great admin. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
82. Support Absolutely yes. Already does a good amount of work clerking with SPI, and will make an excellent admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
83. Support Easy support. Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
84. Support. I've seen this user around quite a lot and they are always helpful! Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
85. Support Thought he was an admin already...Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 14:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
86. Unquestionably support StevenJ81 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
87. Support Excellent candidate who will do a fine job. Optional questions posed by inexperienced editors (some trolling, others just noob) give Ivan a pretty good idea of what he's in for. Miniapolis 14:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
88. Support. The Canadian Wikipedia Admin Cabal always needs more recruits. On a more serious note, Ivanvector does great work at RfD, where I'm a regular admin, and apparently also does great work at SPI; both of these need more admins. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
89. Support - his efforts so far at SPI are appreciated. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    Just happened to notice this - how nice to see someone recognising a problem as poor sources, nothing more, and not flying off the handle and screaming "Vandalism". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
90. Support: plenty of clue and already trusted from work on SPI. Granting him admin tools would be an obvious advantage to the project. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
91. —Kusma (t·c) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
92. (edit conflict) Support – Ivanvector's contributions in the fields of redirects and sockpuppet investigations cannot be overstated. Mz7 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
93. Support - Ivanvector has proved himself trustworthy and I have no concerns about him getting the tools. -- Dane ^talk 16:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
94. Support I hate to pile on, but all signs are that Ivanvector will make an excellent administrator. Sideways713 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
95. Support - Although I have nothing against yellow maple leaves, I can find nothing that gives me pause about endorsing this candidate. Patient, communicates well, and has shown exceptional cluefulness in various discussions. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
96. Support - Ivan is more than qualified to be an admin. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
97. Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
98. Support. Being familiar with Ivanvector's editing habits here on Wikipedia, I'm not sure I have anything to add that the nominators and the other supporters haven't already stated themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
99. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 18:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
100. Support Oh heck yes, everywhere I see IV he's radiating cluefulness. Crow^Caw 18:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
101. Support. Great candidate. More admins are needed at WP:SPI, this will be excellent improvement for the project. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
102. Support Calm, knowledgeable, collegial and skilled. Absolutely no concerns about trusting this editor with admin tools. Absolute confidence that they'll be used properly. David in DC (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
103. Support as one of the subset of users who thought he was an admin already... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
104. Support more than qualified. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
105. Support. Another case of "thought he was already." —ATS 🖖 talk 20:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
106. Support - I've seen Ivanvector around, been generally impressed. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
107. No reason not to support. Every faith they would be a net positive. — foxj 20:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
108. Support no concerns here; appears to be a good candidate DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
109. Support. Don't often comment at RfAs, but two things prompted me here. Kipperfield's latest case at SPI took ages to be dealt with, so clearly we need more administrators there, and the "inner history nerd" comment is just the sort person we need on Wikipedia. That tells me this is an administrator who will understand the needs of content contributors, even though his own content record is only moderate (and good answers to questions all round) SpinningSpark 21:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
110. Support Yes please! Per noms and many of the other supports. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
111. Support Why not? -FASTILY 21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
112. Support as co-nominator. Forgot I hadn't done this yet! Sam Walton (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

     Tardy to the party ; ) Mkdw^talk 22:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

113. Support Sorry again! TheOneFootTallBrickWall (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
114. Support per all above. To be honest Ivanvector should have become admin years ago. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
115. Strong Support I've seen Ivanvector at work in SPI and other sockpuppet-related proceedings elsewhere. His understanding of policy is impressive and I see a valid need for the tools. I like the quality (and quantity) of participation in wikipedia namespace pages, which to me bespeaks care and desire to contribute in some of our most sorely lacking areas. The final deciding factor—the way he answered question 6 indicates that he will be a thoughtful administrator who exercises sound judgment without unnecessarily BITING new users. Without reservations, he has my full-throated support. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
116. Support . Long overdue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
117. why not? After all, I though Ivanvector was an admin already --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
118. Support. Absolutely no concerns based on previous interactions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
119. Support – The user does good work. This is an easy decision. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
120. Support Appears to be competent enough to be trusted with advanced features. — Music1201 ^talk 02:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
121. Support. Like the SPI work and detailed/reasoned response to Question 5. Shearonink (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
122. Support  I had the occasion to notice a few of this editor's responses last weekend, and his workmanship stood out.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
123. Strong Support Great experience with policy, nuanced editing and administrative experiences, and great character. --JustBerry (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
124. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
125. Support Honestly thought you were already an admin. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
126. Support, of course - Whenever I have an oppurtunity I always lavishly praise my fellow SPI Clerks as they do most of the heavy lifting around there, and I'd be delighted to see Ivan go from non-admin clerk to admin clerk. I don't recall any instance where I found fault in his recommendation of admin action. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
127. Support no concerns, a clear net positive.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
128. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 05:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
129. Support Trusted and experienced editor. Good candidate. lNeverCry 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
130. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
131. Support Meets my criterium of being saner than I am. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
132. Support - one of those cases where I'm surprised that the candidate is not already an admin. We desperately need more admins to work at SPI, and Ivanvector's record speaks for itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
133. Support Will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. AIRcorn (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
134. Support, why not? Mike Peel (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
135. Support; not gonna break WP, and gonna do some (more) good. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
136. Support, yep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
137. Support. A clear net positive from a solid candidate. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
138. Support. Looks like he has the right stuff.KMJKWhite (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
139. Support per noms. Snuge purveyor (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
140. Support Unreservedly. Saw the name at RFA and that's all I needed to see. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
141. Support. Great candidate. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
142. Support I've seen his dedication to SPI work personally, plus he was nominated by some respectable editors, including one who just won a seat in the AC. --QEDK (愛) 18:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
143. Support Yet another "What? Not an admin already?" Meters (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
144. Oppose - jk, thought you were already, adding my weight behind the overwhelming support here. GiantSnowman 19:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
145. Support Looks good to me.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
146. Support an excellent candidate whose been around a long time. Proven track record. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
147. Support what's not to love? I was going to vote O, just to make sure everyone was awake, but couldn't think of a thing to say to support it, except maybe...just maybe...nope, nothing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
148. Support One of the best candidates to date. Four noms and the answers do it. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
149. Support - Although I disagree with his stance on blocking editors/IPs who are vandalizing, I think that he will be an overall positive for the project. He seems like he will also be pretty helpful. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
150. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
151. Support Easy decision. Haven't interacted with you before, but your answers are all great. Good luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
152. Support: Just piling on at this point.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
153. Support no reason not to. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
154. Support Piling on. Put me in the "you're not an admin already?" list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
155. Support I have been offline for a few days and find myself way down the list of supporters. That is fine with me because it means that an excellent candidate is deservedly well on the way to being an administrator. His further contributions to SPI will be very helpful. It seems to me that sockpuppetry is not the easiest problem to spot, verify and handle and backlogs often mount up. Good answers. He has a good record with deletions and enough all around experience to be familiar with policies. His trustworthiness is definitely established. Donner60 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
156. Support looks like a good addition to the mop-and-bucket squad based on answers to the questions here. A few spot-check undos don't turn over any unpleasant truths, so I'll take the nominators at their word. Icebob99 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
157. Support – why not? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
     to reply to me 06:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
158. Support Excellent candidate. No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
159. Strong support - I've been looking forward to this RfA. Ivan deserves our support, and I'm glad to see him getting such a strong showing. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
160. Whole-hearted support. Cautious, civil, policy-analytical, experienced, smart.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
161. Yes. Good article writing such as recently on Ashbridge Estate, a clear willingness to help out on admin roles on Wikipedia, seems level headed and uncontroversial, and has understanding of Wikipedia policies and methods. In the answer to the user names question, should have Googled clashroyalepedia as that only takes a moment, and the name clearly looks like a fan website, but other than that the question was answered well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
162. Support I think this would be a good thing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
163. Support, 100% good vibes from previous encounters. Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
164. Support, no issues, will make good use of the tools. --Laser brain (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
165. Support - about time! Best of luck sir. 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 13:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
166. Support (e/c). I disagree with the last part of his answer to Q7 (even vandals should be allowed at least one warning, unless it's obvious that they've vandalised before), but it's not a deal breaker for me. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
167. Support Competent. Seems like a good track record. Seems to have an excellent grasp of that god awful mess SPI. Also seems to have a good attitude toward the newbies, which is particularly important for me. I would only add that re: Q7, if you have to leave an explanatory note, should definitely direct toward THQ, Helpdesk, or both, because they're more responsive than an individual editor, and responsiveness is often important for retention in the age of everybody has Facebook on their phone. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
168. Support Another great candidate, happy to support. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
169. Support seems able, thanks for offering to contribute. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
170. Support Nothing to worry me here. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
171. Support - outstanding and exemplary member of the Wikipedia community. I thought Ivan was an admin already! YITYNR ^{My work • What's wrong?} 20:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
172. Support. Good answers. Fences&Windows 21:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
173. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
174. Support – sensible and knowledgeable of policy. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
175. Support - Wait he's not an admin? Wait, I haven't supported yet? Definitely qualifies as having good judgement. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 02:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
176. Support - Do I need to post reason?! Obviously no! User itself is the biggest reason to support! --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 06:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
177. Support - absolutely, it's about time! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
178. Support, thought they already were an admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC).
179. Support. Ivanvector is a model Wikipedian who will use the administrative rights well and wisely. /wiae 🎄 14:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
180. Absolutely. No concerns. Great contributions at RfD, especially after Godsy lost. SSTflyer 15:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
181. Strong support. Has been not just an admin - but a very good one - without the tools for a long time. WJBscribe (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
182. Looks good. T. Canens (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
183. Support I like the answers to 6 and 7. Sometimes people make mistakes, AGF is important, we should give benefit of the doubt to people who might be valuable contributors and I have faith Ivan will help there. South Nashua (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
184. Support with pleasure. Welcome aboard. -- œ^™ 06:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
185. Support. Sound answers to the above questions. Candidate has a clear understanding of policies and is already a recognized contributor in the community. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
186. Support: He is pretty much as good as they get! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
187. Support Clearly a WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project, and the only oppose !votes on this RFA have been frivolous or ridiculous. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
188. Support. I've worked with "admin-elect" Ivanvector many times, and we've had agreements and disagreements. This, however, is another one we don't even have to do much thinking about. Great choice for adminship!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 21:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
189. Support The candidate seems to be competent, no serious concerns.--Catlemur (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
190. Support Recognize name and have favorable impression of user. Welcome aboard. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
191. Support based on passing interactions at WP:CARD and general clue on how to be a reasonable fellow. "Pepper" @ 01:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
192. Support great answers, I found their comments on Q8, 9 and 5 in particular insightful and well-phrased. Blythwood (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
193. Support: In my opinion, this is an administrator who will understand what content contributors need but not fall into the trap of treating content contributors as being "more equal" than Wikignomes. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
194. Support: - I'll pile on, no qualms here. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 04:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
195. Oppose because of what Katie said about Shakespearean scholars, which leads me to imply that— Oops, I meant strong support. At this point, I think Ivan will get admin status anyway. He is really qualified for this position, and competent based on my research on him. Another 5 votes, and he'll have 200 unanimous supports. epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

     Also, four nominators? This guy must be awesome! =O epicgenius (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

196. Support An excellent candidate already doing important administrative-type work. Giving Ivanvector the tools clearly benefits the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
197. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
198. Support, the more admins the merrier, and ivanvector looks eminently suitable, plus open to being trouted Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
199. Support - piling on. An excellent candidate indeed. This was long overdue. Yash! 16:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
200. Support WP:RFX200. Welcome to the team. Widr (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
201. Support Good work at SPI and overall a great editor. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
202. Support - Good to see another worthy editor getting the bit. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
203. Support Keep up the good work once you get the tools. VegaDark (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
204. Support to simply negate the impact of Andrew Davidson who appears to have no interest in maintaining Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
205. Support happy to welcome another pair of responsible and hard working hands to help with the endless admin tasks. Thank you for taking the step forward. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
206. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
207. Support naturally. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
     
208. Support wholeheartedly, as a fellow SPI clerk. You'll do great. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
209. Support – has my trust. — Earwig ^talk 05:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
210. Support - I've seen Ivanvector around and have seen no issues at all, either myself of from reading the 3 opposes below. Like others I assumed they were already an admin. Good luck with the mop, and welcome to the fold!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
211. Support Solid candidate. No evidence that he would misuse the tools, and adminship is supposed to be no big deal, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
212. Support Solid candidate, many nominations and the fact that he has already made enemies (oppose vote 4, for instance) confirms he's (over)qualified. Fbergo (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
213. Support per Ritchie333 and great answer to question 9. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I oppose. TheOneFootTallBrickWall (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion due to accidental vote

TheOneFootTallBrickWall any particular reason why? Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 09:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC) We must have a consensus for only extended confirmed users in RFA (including comments section, IP editors in RFA are sock puppets) to avoid these useless trolling. Created his userpage and talk page and gave barnstars with no interaction. --Marvellous Spider-Man 10:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Absolutely. Less noise is always welcome. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Extended confirmed? This would have been covered by auto confirmed. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC) That's not a good idea, although it would be nice to reduce the noise. It's has always been our custom to allow IPs to participate in the debate (although not to vote) because there's an understanding that some long-term, valued contributors choose not to register a username. It would be a shame to bar such contributors from having a say here. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I'm going to be bold and strike this !vote out as trolling. If you disagree then feel free to revert. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I reverted; the 'crats are intelligent enough to weigh the !votes appropriately should a 'crat chat be required. Users should really only strike their own !votes, unless they are striking !votes by IPs banned/blocked users. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I disagree with this action. It's clearly a disruptive edit and only invites RFA to be targeted by vandals if WP:DENY won't be enacted. Mkdwtalk 21:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I smell a sock. Question is - whose? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I completely disagree with that rational and agree with Mkdw. Per WP:RFAV, "entirely inappropriate votes or comments might be indented, struck, or even removed by other editors in good standing", not just 'crats, and I believe this edit is one that is entirely inappropriate and was just blatant trolling. With that said, I will not re-strike it (unless it is confirmed to be a sock of someone as Ritchie333 suggested), but I definitely wouldn't be against someone else doing it again. JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | Hey guys! I am sooo sorry, I did not mean to oppose this nomination, I meant to a oppose a diff one. I crossed out my vote and am putting a support. Have a nice day. TheOneFootTallBrickWall (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Well, alright, that's that. We can move on now. JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose In Q5, the candidate says that he would block a user account immediately for implied shared use. This is incorrect as the policy indicates that blocking is a last resort and that other actions should be tried first – "Generally, editors whose usernames are a technical or borderline violation of the Username policy should be given an opportunity to discuss the username and how they may register a new username." At a recent editathon that I attended, immediate blocking was done in such a case. The account was that of the Wikipedian-in-residence who had organised the event in good faith and the block caused considerable bad feeling and disruption. What seems especially egregious is that the candidate indicates that his "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" action would be so that his preferred template wording could be used. He does not seem to consider that explaining the issue in his own words might be better or even possible. In Q7, we see a similar harsh attitude, "I don't see the point of spending the time". This indifference is further exhibited on the candidate's user page where he says "My core editing philosophy is to not give a fuck". The candidate's enthusiasm for SPI clerking but lack of interest in content creation seems consistent with this general approach.

   As for the content creation, I note that the user says he is an accountant and that articles like double-entry bookkeeping system are high on his list of edited pages. That page has had a cleanup banner tag since 2013 while the candidate has edited it many times. But all he seems to do there is revert the edits of other editors; there doesn't seem to be much value added. This is not good enough for autopatrolled rights and so it's not good enough for the much stronger bundle of admin rights. Andrew D. (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   Those are options, not "carved in stone procedures". For blatant cases I agree with the applicant. - Mlpearc (open channel) 12:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   The typical procedure for a username block is to put up a softer notice than the typical "you have been a naughty boy" script you get for other types. They are flagged in CAT:UNBLOCK as "username" and the instructions guide them towards picking a new name - as soon as they've picked one, they're unblocked. It's the most common type of unblock I perform and I can't say I've ever seen anyone complain or shout "admin abuez" over it. So I don't see the issue. For Q7, the candidate was talking about blocking somebody whose edits are blatant vandalism, such as blanking an article and replacing it with "poop". Again, this is what I do when patrolling AIV - I assume good faith and turn down report where I can, but a clear and unambiguous vandal is an instant block, no comment, don't let the door hit you on the way out. So I think your comments here are out of context and rather wide of the mark. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   I too had a some difficulty with his statement "My core editing philosophy is to not give a fuck". Does not sound very Canadian! However I have to agree with Ritchie333 that a clear and unambiguous vandal is an instant block, no comment, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Also his work re sockpuppet investigations is very, very important! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   The statement on his userpage is linked to WP:FUCK, a well-known essay. It's worth a read before taking the statement in a bad way. Revent^talk 18:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333: ...the instructions guide them towards picking a new name - as soon as they've picked one, they're unblocked. (...) I can't say I've ever seen anyone complain or shout "admin abuez" over it. - surely, there is a bit of selection bias at work though. Those who do not understand what happens that prevents them from editing, or do not care to follow the username change procedure, will disappear forever - they will not go on a sockpuppetting rampage of vandalism, but they will not become productive editors either. So this is a problem - maybe not a big one, but to judge that one would need stats on the number of username blocks that have been lifted by username change etc.; the "unblock" perspective is not enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   I looked through the 2016 instances where Ritchie unblocked someone in one of those username cases. In almost every case, the user did not continue to edit. Andrew D. (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   Two reasons to oppose and over ten reasons to support. Really? J947 19:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose I realise that 'personal-interaction' opposes carry little weight and are generally seen as mere 'sour grapes', however I concur with a post above that IV is too inclined to see 'black and white'. Knowing the rules is not the same as possessing the judgement as to how they should best be implemented. I don't doubt IV's good intentions, nor that he is a net asset, however several of my interactions with IV have led me to conclude that he is inclined to apply the rules to others, while ignoring them himself, in a way that execerbates, rather than resolves disputes. This is the last thing needed from an admin. IV is clearly going to 'pass' here, and I sincerely hope that the other 200 are proved right, but I cannot support this myself. Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   We could use some evidence for the assertion that rules would be applied unfairly and unevenly. Nick (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   Similarly, we could use some evidence for the assertion that rules will be applied fairly and evenly. I think Andrew Davidson raises a pertinent question that has not been asked: why SPI clerking? and so little content creation? Hmlarson (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   I must say that "why SPI clerking" is a somewhat relevant question - the business of clerking here is quite strange, especially with so many CheckUsers. But I don't think the rest of Andrew D.'s oppose du jour is worth worrying about. Everyone has different interests here, and adminship itself is focused quite heavily away from content creation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   Editors with admin tools impact content creation in numerous ways .... whether or not they are actually creating any content. ivanvector why SPI clerking? Hmlarson (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   Well, of course there's the perpetual debate about how much content experience admins need, though in my own experience the answer is "not much" to effectively press the block or delete buttons. The SPI clerking question is more general than just this candidate - I wonder why they exist at all, though of course it is fair to ask why someone would want to spend their time in an overly-bureaucratic environment changing the state of requests for CU information. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Ajraddatz: You have a very strange idea of what clerking involves.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   Nah. I've just never seen the utility for clerking in general on these websites. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

   Clerks at SPI make actual determinations of sockpuppetry. They also handle the administrative tasks of merging cases, archiving them after review, etc. so our limited supply of CheckUsers can get around to cases within a reasonable amount of time. They are useful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, I do in fact know what the clerks do. I just don't see utility in what they do. I've had CU access across the Wikimedia network for almost three years now and have never needed someone to endorse requests made of me or archive them for me after. But as I said, it's a concern with the process in general, not the candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   Endorsing or declining CU requests and archiving cases is only a portion of what our clerks do. Over half their workload is making determinations in cases where no CU involvement is warranted or necessary, and without them, most cases would never get the attention they deserve. "Clerk" is perhaps not the best name for them - "investigator" seems to fit the role better. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose Q9 safe space and privilege jargon. Most people edit anonymously here so identity politics are only harmful. It is dangerous if an administrator has this kind of a self-righteous attitude towards alleged harassment. In the Gender Gap Task Force ArbCom case many of the female editors who claimed to have been harassed were disruptive and nasty themselves and ended up indef blocked. People edit serious topics in Wikipedia and usually are pretty nasty towards people they edit-war with, but it's another thing to rev this up with PC culture with different layers of privilege and harassment claims that can be abused. No thanks. --Pudeo (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   Pudeo, I wonder if you've read Ivan's comment to me about my former oppose. I opposed - now neutral because ... well decide for yourself - on the basis of their answer to Q9 as well. For similar and different reasons to your own. Definitely not as succinctly described. They mentioned their own privilege in their comment to me and provided reasoning for it beyond just saying that they are privileged. Though I'm not sure that the impact will be particularly positive, maybe just less disconcerting. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose – per Andrew D's explanation. I got to know the candidate two years ago when he tried to get me blocked at ANI, but failed. Not only did he blatantly disregard WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, he also assumed bad faith by implying that I'm being disingenuous and "trying to bargain to avoid a block" (completely smearing my intentions). He also ignored WP:DUCKTEST as irrelevant by accepting (at face value) the comments made on ANI by an IP claiming to be an admin (even though other users correctly pointed out that the admin actually needs to confirm that he was that IP). I don't want to see how he deals with WP:SOCK or block policy when he's handed the mop. Based on his conduct and responses above, he'll probably be soft on the former and trigger happy with the latter, which is the complete opposite of what an admin should do. Finally, his limited "involvement" with content creation (while vociferously calling for the blocking of content creators on ANI) doesn't help his cause at all. Have fun with the mop while you block/drive away those who actually work towards making WP what it is today – you've done it before with me, I'm sure you'll do it again. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose Similar reasoning as User:Pudeo. The use of the "marginalized" and "privileged" buzzwords as well as calling for a safe space of some kind for women is disheartening for someone who will be able to block other users. I also don't know how the crate-fence image cited below applies to a volunteer project like this; am I withholding crates from others, are other withholding crates from me? I am 1.94 m in real life, does this or any of my other physical characteristics alter my experience as a volunteer contributor to an encyclopedia? I can take or leave baseball regardless. Konigcorvus (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose. Another partisan who already has a record of employing administrative processes against users he disagrees with in disputes, including false insinuations of misbehavior and patent double standards. Another editor who uses civility-related claims against those he disagrees agrees with while denying their importance when his buddies' comments are even worse. While the candidate blathers on in his responses about an appropriate environment for new editors, he also supports long term "contributors" who prey on new editors, blitz-tagging their new articles, while still under construction, with proposals for deletion and consistently failing to provide even a shred of support to the inexperienced who are contributing in good faith. Worse, he has advocated for sanctions against me for accurately describing that such treatment of newbies as "abusive" and violating WP:BITE. Behavior like that undermines one of the WMF's key objectives, and should be plainly disqualifying for a would-be administrator. Not too long ago, I found myself in conflict with him over whether an editor who had a lengthy track record of tossing around rhetoric like "you half-arsed small brained fuckwit" and making sometimes dishonest, often incoherent, uninformed and wholly inaccurate deletion proposals -- only to find Ivanvector insisting that forcefully calling attention to long-term misbehaviour was worse than actively damaging this encyclopedia, and rather uniquely insisting that questioning the competence of editors who regularly post incoherent nonsense is somehow bad behaviour. My practice of trying to avoid the drama boards over the holidays has clearly served badly here, and my comments are too late to prevent this lump of coal from being dropped into Wikipedia's collective Christmas stocking. But granting administrative powers to an editor with a track record like this can only reinforce the notion that Wikipedia is too often governed by feral adolescents of various, even advanced ages. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: It's kind of late for that (the RfA closes tonight), but next time you might want to give diffs. One might want to see and judge by themselves accusations such as he has advocated for sanctions against me for accurately describing that such treatment of newbies as "abusive" and violating WP:BITE. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 23:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   I was curious what that was all about and so have a couple of links to hand: RfD; ANI. My impression is that no-one came out of it very well. Andrew D. (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

   I didn't think, given the little time left, it was useful to go into too many particulars. This diff [5] is the one I was particularly referring, where the candidate quite clearly objects to questioning the competence of an editor as an NPA violation, an argument which has absolutely no basis in policy or guidelines. You should also note that the candidate posted a request for sanctions against me without notifying me, which is a remarkable failure for someone seeking administrative powers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - As always, I will remain neutral until my question is answered, hopefully soon. Other than that, everything looks good! I'd easily give a support even if the question does not receive the answer I want. Unless something comes up, of course. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC) (Boldly striking the comment of this blocked editor; the silly question has been answered; and the blocked editor cannot remove his !vote. Lourdes 01:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC))   ___  [@Lourdes: The block log here is clean.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)] [Struck. Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)]

@Unscintillating: Lourdes is referring to Luke's topic ban from RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As editors have mentioned to you before, you do not need to make posts like this. Just wait to post something until you have formed your opinion like everyone else. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Isn't four nominators a little...over the top? Joshualouie711 (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically a bunch of us spontaneously and independently decided to put forward Ivanvector after the poll, then I got an email from him yesterday saying he was going to run. I started filing the nomination, edit conflicted with Sam doing the same, so rather than bin my version, I decided to merge them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

A lot of nominators is a good thing. The more nominators, the better received the candidate should be by the community. It's a nominabonanza! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 00:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: Please make sure to place your comment after other existing comments in the same thread to ensure the order of comments are preserved. WP:THREAD provides an example of how these discussions should be formatted. Mkdw^talk 00:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sir UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 00:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Ivanvector was trying to be polite and didn't want us to start fighting each other for the "right" to nominate him. Mkdw^talk 00:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no problems what-so-ever with having so many nominators. Given how contentious that RFAs have become in recent times (lol including mine), one cannot blame anyone for doing what's possible to have a strong application. Plus, if they're willing to co-co-co-nom someone like this, it just speaks more positively towards the candidate to me :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

From my Support comment: "In what is sure to be a sea of support, however, I'll just mention that three co-nominations almost feels like the RFA equivalent of WP:OVERLOAD WP:OVERKILL. While it doesn't change my views on the candidate at all here, in other instances it may have had a negative impact." My gut instinct with three co-nominations is that it might be loading the nomination to mask impropriety and help to get a controversial candidate through. That isn't the case in this instance, but it's not really great practice. KaisaL (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd agree - a nom is even more of a !vote of confidence (see what I did there? :) than a regular support !vote. So it stands to reason that more respected editors than normal (we usually don't get more than 2 noms) are sure of their candidate's judgment to back them through an often-confrontational process. To cut through my typical verbosity, I agree with Oshwah that this is a good sign, if anything. GAB^gab 03:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: On your retracted edit, I confused OVERLOAD with OVERKILL, the latter being the essay I actually intended to mention. It's commonly used at AFD to refer to articles with a vast swathe of references in an attempt to mask a lack of notability. It seemed a fair correlation for an RFA with a large number of co-nominations. Allowing lots of nominations not only suggests that perhaps those are masking something, but also brings in the notion raised later that some future oppose !votes could be made purely because only one nominator is present. (We've already got !oppose votes for self-nominations, so it's not a stretch to expect that.) KaisaL (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Having worked at AFD for many years, I'm familiar with WP:OVERKILL and that makes sense. After I replied I assumed this is what you meant which is why I retracted my comment. Note: Though WP:BOMBARD is the relative essay I come across more often in AFD discussions. Mkdw^talk 17:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

While the following doesn't apply at all to this eminently qualified candidate, I share a general uneasiness with piling on noms--my concern is that it may come across as stacking the deck. To be clear, I don't think we should suddenly start holding this against candidates; RfA already has too many problems with punishing candidates for not being mind-readers. I'd rather see something added to the instructions like, "You may have up to three nominators," and oblige all other supporters to add their comments here with the rest of the hoi polloi :) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm biased in this case but I don't feel like this affects RFA in any tangible way. Anything negative has been a hypothetical. I think instruction creep has much more negative consequences. Mkdw^talk 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro 2 Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note I think Dennis was making the point that an RfA with no fewer than 6 nominees, went through with 96 supports and 1 oppose, back in the ole days the days that my signature likes to remind people about. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that more nominators shows positive community support for the nominee, as they have an embarrassment of nominators looking to recommend them for the mop. I don't see a down-side. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Not over the top; just right. There's no downside here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• No reason you'd have to confine yourself to just a line or two in the support section if you've got something substantive to say. It'd be a nice break from "looks good, no concerns, overdue". —Cryptic 08:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• As long as the new stylish oppose !vote doesn't change to "Oppose, only has one nominator", we should be good. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  Friends, Wikipedians, countrymen, lend him your ears! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think it ultimately makes a difference. At some point, though, supporters adding more nomination statements instead of just including the text under the Support section are making it more about the nominators than the nominee. A well-written consolidated nomination statement signed by multiple persons is a good alternative. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• I personally think candidates shouldn't have more than two noms (three in exceptional circumstances), but that's more because a plethora of noms dilutes the importance of each one. If you have two people who can say great things about you, why add a third and risk tl;dr? I wound up turning down three different nominators for my own RfA because I felt the two I had thoroughly covered my strengths. But that's just for the candidate's benefit. It's certainly not a poor reflection on the candidate that they went to run and had well-respected admins clamoring to nominate them! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Interior also had four nominators, myself among them, as he didn't want to say no to the lovely people who kept demanding that he run. Right, The Interior? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• And I'll never forgive any of you ;) The Interior (Talk) 15:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• There should be a new rule that if there are more than two nominators to a RFA that gets over 95% support, they should be required to perform a Shakespearean-style poem of their choosing after the candidate is made admin. Right, guys? But seriously, two qualified nominators is sufficient, three is very robust, and four or more means that the candidate probably has an airtight case for adminship. epicgenius (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion regarding question from AlexEng

6. You see a user (assume the author) moving this draft into mainspace. What do you do?

Sorry, AlexEng, I had to delete the draft per WP:CSD#G12 - copyright violations are against the terms of service, torpedoing somebody else's RfA isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I'm not sure what you mean by copyright violations. That page was a word-for-word copy of Cesar Chavez, with a different lead photo and name. G12 specifically excludes Wikipedia mirrors/forks. I'm going to presume you're not insinuating that I'm "torpedoing somebody else's RfA," since that would be a pretty blatant breach of AGF. My question was a good faith attempt to gauge the candidate's reaction to an inappropriate draft-move and subsequent interaction(s) with the user responsible. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I meant I was going to torpedo the question by deleting the article - if a draft triggers a high percentage on the copyvios tool (it was around 95%) and is an obvious cut and paste job from an article (which, as you just admitted, it is, and thus the copypasta will lose all attribution and history, in violation of the CC-BY-SA license), then an immediate speedy delete is necessary (btw, this isn't the first time this has happened - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyphoidbomb 2#Oppose). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: thanks for clarifying what you meant by "torpedoing somebody else's RfA." I was confused by your wording. Regarding the draft you deleted, I'm not aware of how the copyvio tool works, but if it triggered off of that page you linked in your deletion log summary, you should know that that page is itself a Wikipedia FORK, so that wouldn't/shouldn't be a licensing concern. I see you are correct regarding the issue with CC-BY-SA for content copied to-and-from Wikipedia as mentioned here. However, I think this is a trivial violation, as the only reason it runs afoul of CC-BY-SA is for lack of attribution via page history; that could be fixed with a simple dummy edit to the effect of Content copied from Cesar Chavez revision #### on <date>. Seeing as you are correct about the technical copyvio, though, I won't argue about it any further, and I've reworded my question to not depend on an extant draft. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the "article" created for purposes of the RfA was consistent with policy for the reasons Ritchie333 has stated. That said, if it had been allowed to remain in place for a couple of days while the candidate answered the question, there would have been no real (as opposed to purely notional) legal risk and the world would not have been endangered. The broader question that Q6 raises in my mind is whether it's fair or helpful to pose that sort of RfA question at all (was the intention along the lines of "maybe the candidate will fall into the trap and not spot the copyvio"?). But all this should probably be discussed elsewhere, if at all, as everyone's acted in good faith, and most important, the candidate has had nothing to do with any of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: this draft was actually created by a different user (i.e. not me), after I nominated their original article for CSD G12 from Mercury News. The user then played around with the draft and happened to copy the text of Cesar Chavez to the draftspace page before abandoning it. I was interested to see how a candidate for admin for react to the page itself and the hypothetical move to article space and what warnings/guidance they might give to the user. It was by no means designed as a trap; the technical copyvio caused by omitting page history was incidental, and if I had spotted it first I would have nominated the draft for CSD myself. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexEng: Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Since this question is no longer valid, and there's a heap of "discussion" around it, I have moved it to the appropriate place. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but what the devil is this? If the user has never been an admin, how come he already has two delete actions? 103.6.159.71 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, but no, he wasn't hacking. The delete log entries were created because he moved a page over an existing redirect, which a non-admin can do as long as there aren't any other edits to the redirect page. In order to move the page back, the redirect had to be deleted. In previous versions of MediaWiki, the redirect would simply be "crushed" and disappear, and no delete log entries would be made. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering about those two entries myself. I did move the page which was formerly at List of Veterans Memorial Highways around that time when I was working on Prince Edward Island Route 2, but I've definitely never been an admin. Users have always been able to move pages over redirects without significant editing history, but I guess it's just recently that the resulting deletion of the redirect has been logged as a G6 action, as K6ka says. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude's comment (my comment)

• Neutral/Discussion - The answer to question 9 is the reason for my oppose. Parts of it are fine, parts of it are *shrugs* alright I disagree but whatever nothing that troubles me, and parts of it raise my eyebrow so far up my head that it's now sitting on the back of my neck.
  Blatantly abusive language ought to be treated as a bright-line WP:NPA violation, especially when intended to abuse a marginalized group - they should be enforced equally no matter who is on the receiving end of it. There should never be an especially if it should always be if it's occurred no matter to whom it has occurred. I expect an admin to do this without prompt.
  Understand of course that this answer is coming from the perspective ... oh for fuck's sake do we really need this? as though your opinion is less valuable or less informed cause you're white or male or middle aged or privileged.
  [A] tolerant space for less-privileged editors - I can't believe this needs saying but, you are on the internet. You are anonymous, unidentifiable, free to do whatever you want (or at least people treat this that way). If you identify yourself - as anything at all, even male - you could be the target of abuse. On my talk page is a discussion, that I won't specify, where one person has been the target of serious abuse for their antivandalism work. These things happen even with our policies and guidelines and the help that admins can and do provide.
  So we move on to; briefly tried an experiment in creating a safe discussion venue for women - so a safe space. Tried an experiment in safe space for women? How about a welcoming space generally for all? would that not be more useful than here's a page just for women, or here's a page just for minorities.
  We must do better at listening to suggestions for improvements especially when they come from the marginalized editors themselves. - So now we're going to value the input of one group more than another, no. I expect an admin to treat all parties equally justly, regardless of any traits or minority status. Sure, be wary of culture, but, Wikipedia has it's own culture that ought to be respected.
  Ivan's a shoe in for adminship and for generally very good reasons. I didn't have a single issue with any of their other answers to any questions. I almost wouldn't be so concerned about their answer to this question - everyone has a right to their opinion so long as they recognize where opinion stops and action starts. Since I reduced the wall two fold, here's a link to the original it's rambly and goes off-the track is significant parts. I wish you the best as an admin, there is little doubt that this will pass with flying colours. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

1. I've read through these comments in both their original and their shortened form and in my 10 years of participation in RfA, I've never seen a less persuasive or appropriate reason for opposing an RfA candidate, whether actually or symbolically. Perhaps the comments were simply meant as an attack against excessive "political correctness," but they come off to me as dismissive and disdainful of any efforts at outreach and inclusiveness, and I am sad to see an outstanding candidate's RfA sullied in this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Newyorkbrad I believe this falls under the purview of symbolic, and I didn't realize, but, part of what I removed isn't in the original diff and is actually here. I did state that I intend to move this oppose into the neutral section later on for two specific reasons. 1. I half expected a strongly worded denouncement of my position in some form or another (not mentioned in the diff) and 2. because while I am concerned with the response Ivanvector gave I expressly did not want to "sully" the 100% achievement of this RfA with my lone concern by leaving it to be closed as such given that it doesn't comment directly on their capabilities as an admin. For that matter if Ivanvector wants they can leave me a comment as well. I am always open to listening and hearing what others have to say - or at least I try to be. That is in part why I haven't responded in the past several hours. I do indeed expect an admin to be even handed regardless of who is on the other side and their response to the question did not give me the feeling they always would be. I can imagine them being swayed by their own biases. I have seen editors jump to defense of a person claiming sexism against all editors and similarly I have seen editors jump to defence of another editor labelling other editors misogynistic. My concerns extend further than just one person, but, their response struck me as being symptomatic of that exact attitude. It was a good faith attempt at pointing to their own biases - pete's sake they can't give their own opinion without a disclaimer about being white or male, which I then also gave because I felt I'd be put under a microscope - as something that gives me cause for concern. I didn't see a particularly strong or destructive bias, but, I do see a potentially negative bias. I don't think I am being dismissive of the efforts on outreach and inclusiveness, but, I'm guessing you'd probably say that "all lives matter" and "blue lives matter" as a response to "black lives matter" are dismissive of their concerns. "Disdainful" I think was downright excessive. Or is there something else you're reading into my comments? I hasten to add that had it been any other candidate, or circumstance, I wouldn't even consider retracting or moving my oppose.Mr rnddude (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Mr rnddude I do not believe "disdainful" to be an excessive description of your oppose, which reveals incredible disdain for WP:CIVIL, one of our core principles. Abuse is not an inevitability; civility is not optional. And when the topic of discussion is receipt of abuse or harrassment, it is quite possible and indeed highly probable that an opinion is less informed if it is a white male's. You say you are open to listening and hearing what others have to say. I would suggest you hear and trust the stories of those who are not white males, and understand that their lived experience is comparatively disempowering in many significant ways, some subtle. What you see as equality and fairness is not necessarily so, and is often only equal and fair to white males. Your oppose is admittedly non-serious, so I urge you to strike it or move it to the comments section as soon as you are able rather than disrupting the process to make a point about your views of inclusiveness. I would describe your original wording as "hateful", and I'm glad you've at least removed the more emotional parts, but I honestly believe that your actions here in such a public forum actively endanger editor retention. Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   And when the topic of discussion is receipt of abuse or harrassment, it is quite possible and indeed highly probable that an opinion is less informed if it is a white male's - thank you for demonstrating my point about such rhetoric and where it leads. Quite well too. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   "I expect an admin to treat all parties equally". I expect an admin to treat all parties justly, not equally (i.e. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness, and done according to principle.) Imagine a group of people involved in extensive back-and-forth reverts, in which one vandalizes Wikipedia. To treat them equally is to block them all. To treat them justly is to block the vandal only, because reverting vandalism is, by principle, exempt from the interpretation of edit warring. Only a fool treats people equally. When it comes to damaging conduct, those more prone to damage must be given higher priority and treated with a stricter behavior threshold. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yes good point. Ive fixed it to justly. You'd have to be far more specific about "prone to damage" though and that is likely a discussion to be had elsewhere. My talk page is free to anyone. From mobile don't have time to add more. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   I appreciate this discussion occurring here (on this page, I mean), and I meant to respond to a couple points last night but sleep got the better of me. I was intending to respond anyway, but thank you for inviting me to do so. First, nobody should feel bad about posting a valid criticism just out of fear of "spoiling" a "perfect record" or whatever. If fellow editors have things to say about my approach, this is the place to say so at the moment, and I intend to take all of these criticisms to heart. I don't think anyone really expects RfA to be unanimous in this era of Wikipedia, least of all me, and nobody really benefits if a "perfect record" is causing editors to feel silenced.

   More importantly, your comment about valuing the input of one group over another, which I think we really agree on but it's getting lost in the language. No doubt you've seen this image or some version of it going around the internet over the last few years, comparing equity with equality. The original version used "conservative vs. liberal" which I find problematic; in our context I like a version which uses "sameness vs. fairness" but it appears to be a copyvio so I have not linked to it. In the example, if we treat all people the same, then some cannot see over the fence; to treat them fairly we need to give more supports to the shorter person, then everyone can see over the fence. What I mean by we must do better at listening to suggestions for improvements especially when they come from the marginalized editors themselves, in the analogy: if the short person comes to us and says they don't watch the game because they can't see over the fence, but we instead declare that because we gave everybody the same number of crates that short people must not watch the game because they just don't understand baseball, or worse we tell them to take their crate to a different game with a shorter fence, then we're treating short people unfairly. It is important to value that input because we will not improve without it; you and I are the tall people, and it has probably never occurred to us that the fence is problematic, it's practically invisible to us. And it's important in these discussions on equality that we acknowledge and disclose our privileges, because a short person may never have considered that a tall person doesn't see the fence. Although that's far less likely, owing to the fact that the short person has spent their entire life trying to see over fences. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Ivanvector The correlation to put it crudely, is white people have advantages over black people and transgender people. That is as a general overview correct, of course. My point was, such generalizations leave serious holes. A wealthy African-American has certain advantages that a white homeless, jobless, hobo does not. That too ought to be obvious, but, some would argue that it is not true let alone obvious. My problem is that in speaking in such generalizations you leave the door open to lesser treatment. Helping someone is one thing, summarily ignoring someone else in the course of doing so quite another. That said, you've clarified what you meant and it is very different to how I read it. Though I still think your declaration of "this is my privileged white person perspective" to be stupid and tolerant of ideas such as mansplaining and whitesplaining. I'm not for a second trying to argue that marginalized editors shouldn't be afforded care or even additional care, just that things like this, where abuse is being justified in the pursuit of equality (gender equality at an article) is not something I agree with or am willing to tolerate. A brightline NPA violation being minimized in the efforts of levelling the playing field is a no go for me. It was being treated less than seriously - you both know better being equal treatment rather than equity according to your analogy don't you think? - and one person even suggested a boomerang. When I say equally, I mean without preferential treatment, not with the exact same level of treatment. That would be like suggesting a scratch should afforded equal care to a missing leg. Stupid. I think that was lost in the way I was wording myself and thus could have been construed as dismissive and disdainful of others concerns. A warning to the other party about civility and NPA was all that was required yet nobody was even on the verge of affording that at the time. Then the other thing that I mentioned in my reply to NYB was this. I'll summarize it as; one editor is being called out for being overly strict with their AfC criteria, her actions are being defended by several editors, the editor in question comes in and declares This is more of the sexism that occurs on Wikipedia, disguised, of course, as an argument about policy. A couple editors call her out on it, but, then one editor comes in with It's a shame that you editors can't take a moment to be introspective about how your actions might be sexist. You tell me, even if you consider the OP as being sexist, was anybody else? I don't see this regularly but I do see it happening. What's more, when it does happen somebody is there to justify it. I was quite critical of it at the thread. That to me is an issue and one that is overlooked or summarily ignored by some when discussing "marginalized groups" (or perceived marginalized groups). I'd like to think you won't be doing that. To put it in the context of your image; what I see on occassion is not the boxes being shared out so that everyone can see the game, but, sometimes a hole dug so that nobody can see the game. Fair? perhaps it's an equal outcome - though I am not an equal outcomes person necessarily - justified, no. A question regarding such as gendered insults targeting editors who identify as female if I called a female editor a "cunt" would you hand me a longer block than if I did it to a male editor? (Assume it's the only time I've done it in the course of my "wikicareer") further would context have an impact on your decision? An example of something I agree with you whole heartedly one is; Some editors attempt to rationalize such behaviour.... We should never tolerate abusive or harrassing behaviour, but again, I don't care who it's coming from and who it's being directed to. It'd be intolerable. The question for me is neither who is the target nor who is the purveyory, but, what is the harrassment and how serious is it. I'd treat stalking far more seriously than trolling regardless if a white man was being stalked and an Aboriginal trolled or vice versa. One is simply the greater issue. That said, the internet is the ultimate levelling tool. You are anonymous until/unless you identify yourself. Nowhere else on Earth are you afforded that privilege. Perhaps I read too deeply into your comments and drew conclusions that were not entirely fair to you, if I did I apologize. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Re: "So now we're going to value the input of one group more than another, no". That's not what was being said; your statement assumes that it's already a level playing field. When Ivanvector says, "we must do better at listening to suggestions for improvements especially when they come from the marginalized editors themselves", the sentence is about marginalized editors. They are editors who are dismissed or ignored, sometimes attacked, because they've publicly disclosed their gender, race, or other identifying factors. By treating all parties equally, that means recognizing that certain groups are under-represented, even proportionately, and an extra effort must be made bring them in line with non-marginalized editors. Ivanvector is not implying that any marginalized group should be catapulted, not only to parity with non-marginalized editors, but past them. Mkdw^talk 21:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Read my above response to Ivanvector. You have a point, I presumed who was being referred to when he said marginalized, not without cause since they declared their own white privilege. A white person can be marginalized, indeed I could point you to instances in the real world where a white person has been. Not white people, but, a white person. Hell, anybody who voted Trump was a sitting duck regardless of the colour of their skin. Black Trump supporters were called traitors and white Trump supporters were given any number of labels available; racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, white supremacist, etc. Their reasons were of couse of no consequence. I have never supported the redefining of terms to satisfy or support a position. The facts should dictate the position, not the position the facts. A black person can be racist, they can also be the target of racism. You could say; "well which is more likely?" and I'd respond with the black person being victimized is far more likely. But if you say; "which is possible?" both are and both should be treated justly. The fact that one happens more often and is more likely does not satisfy the idea that the other should be ignored or indeed marginalized. Most editors don't do this either way you look at it, but, I've seen it happen. I appreciate Codename Lisa bringing up the point of equal and just, you are indeed correct. Equal does not mean just. The more I think about this, the more political - anti-political correctness more specifically - I feel I've been. NYB might have had something of a point. Sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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