The Wikipedia Post — Appendix D: Ian Thomson
Following the GamerGate ArbCom case, I was subjected to a ban from GamerGate articles. After I received several blocks for ostensibly violating the ban due to me removing what were acknowledged to be violations of Wikipedia’s policies on unsourced negative claims about living people, which are normally a valid cause for claiming an exemption from a ban, I commented about editor Ian.thomson running to become one of the site’s administrators. When I attempted to alert some editors to my concerns, I had my existing one-month block extended by three months(See Part 8).
Not even a month after he would obtain adminship, Ian would be abusing his position to favor his own side in a dispute. Ian is a highly active editor on articles about religion, including having had “edit wars” with editors on the article on Abrahamic religions over the inclusion of certain Abrahamic faiths. When an editor suggested Judaism should not be listed alongside Christianity and Islam as the “largest” Abrahamic religions, given the vast disparity in numbers, Ian restored the listing and decried it as censorship. The current version of the article lists them as the “major” religions rather than largest.
When the editor attempted to create a page on the origins of Abrahamic faiths, Ian repeatedly deleted the page claiming it was a biased “fork” or copy of the entire article on Abrahamic religions, rather than a spin-off article. He would subsequently block the user. After the user’s block was lifted over a technicality, the user complained of the “unlawful block” at a conduct noticeboard, but the choice of phrasing and poor knowledge of the process meant other editors ignored the issue being raised and supported an indefinite ban of the user.
Though not one of the regulars at the GamerGate article, Ian did have a history of editing alongside TheRedPenofDoom, one of the so-called Five Horsemen of Wikibias. Such editing included edits related to religion as on the article on creationist Ken Ham. Given his general focus on articles about religion and tendency to have contentious disputes about those articles as above, Ian could be construed as “involved” under Wikipedia standards.
Despite this, he would protect a page about a film covering a Filipino spiritual leader rather than block RedPen for reverting in clear excess of the permitted three reverts on the page. Editors objecting to Ian’s decision noted RedPen had a long history of such violations and had brazenly breached the rules. Ian would subsequently use his ability to continue editing a locked page to restore RedPen’s edit.
Ian also would take action regarding a dispute over a page on “Male Genital Mutilation” created by one editor as a proposed counterpart to the article on FGM. After Ian repeatedly made the article a redirect and repeatedly removed the same material from a broader article on genital mutilation, he blocked the editor for exceeding the number of allowed reverts.
The editor had only exceeded this number because Ian was effectively teamed up with Arbitration Committee member Michel “Drmies” Aaij who had also undone the editor’s addition. On a discussion about the article, Ian talked about not “giving the [Men’s Rights Movement] another inch” by having the page redirect to circumcision. While Ian and Aaij linked the editor’s actions to men’s rights activists criticizing circumcision, the page in question cited a variety of forms of genital mutilation.
Yet another instance of Ian using tools on a religion-focused article where he had a form of involvement involved the article on Satanism. A long-running fight over the article involves whether Satanism should be described as a religion in the introduction. Ian has not only long been an active participant in discussing the article, he has also directly engaged in removing mentions of Satanism as a religion. Once he gained administrative authority he would take the step of locking the page after undoing another attempt to add this description.
Many times these kinds of actions by Ian were overlooked, but an action he took regarding the article on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election would mark his first genuine controversy. SPECIFICO, an editor with a long history of left-wing agenda-pushing, posted to the discussion page accusing editor JFG of violating a restriction on the page that only permitted editors to make reverts of edits one time every 24 hours. JFG’s edits restored quotes from a critic of Russia hacking allegations and removed repetitive quoting of Obama officials James Clapper and John Brennan stating Russia interfered to support Trump. Ian initially claimed that while a technical violation occurred, he did not feel it was serious enough to warrant more than a warning.
However, Ian would go back on this and declare it was a long-standing issue and imposed a restriction on JFG indefinitely prohibiting him from undoing any edits at all on articles related to American politics. JFG appealed the restriction noting SPECFICO had repeatedly made frivolous and false complaints of violations before and suggested SPECIFICO was harassing him. Further, he stated the sanction created a chilling effect on his edits. One administrator largely agreed with this, stating SPECIFICO had repeatedly made unfounded complaints to him as well.
Eventually, Ian would agree to modify the restriction by limiting it to just three days on the Russian interference article. While Ian has not been heavily involved in American politics articles, he has commented about the 2016 election. During the primaries, he commented about being a Sanders supporter, adding that he would not move back to the United States if Texas Senator Ted Cruz or then-candidate Donald Trump became President. Shortly before the election he stated “the thought of Trump as president scares me” and expressed disappointment in his victory. On several occasions, he also accused editors of being Russian state-backed trolls when they commented on articles related to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory to object to the characterization of the theory as “debunked” or “false” rather than “unsubstantiated” as they noted there has not been an official investigation into the claims of conspiracy theorists.
People who become administrators on Wikipedia are expected to adhere to certain standards. Although, like all Wikipedia standards, they tend to be enforced selectively. When I raised concerns about Ian.thomson’s past, it was because he had a habit of being inflammatory towards other editors and adding obscenely biased material to articles. Like in many of the above cases, he got away with this behavior partly because his targets were not popular on Wikipedia.
Return to Table of Contents
