Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Note to readers: This is an experimental RfA based on the discussion on the RfA talk page. People were given four days starting from Tuesday 7 October to ask questions and generally review the candidate. On Saturday 11 October, the discussion and questioning section were closed and the voting section opened up. This is, despite the experimental nature, a serious RfA; I'd appreciate if people vote based on the user, not the process.

Ironholds

edit

Final (30/24/11) withdrew per Q.27 Ironholds (talk · contribs)

I have an extraordinary respect for Ironholds. He has brought a peerless degree of intelligence, sincerity and dedication to this project. As an editor, he has worked tirelessly to expand the depth and scope of Wikipedia’s contents, both through the creation of original content and in his insightful observations within the AfD process. He also does a find job identifying articles deserving of Speedy Deletion and, where applicable, reporting users who violate Wikipedia policies. In his communications with his fellow editors, Ironholds displays maturity and good spirit, which helps to solidify the positive aspects of our community. By offering his candidacy in this variation of the RfA vehicle (which most of us agree is not working), he continues to show his passion for improving Wikipedia’s operations. By nominating Ironholds for adminship, I believe Wikipedia will be well served by this wonderful individual. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Thanks to Ecoleetage for his kind words :).Ironholds 18:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate 1-10

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Speedy Deletion candidates are something I'd like to focus on; several times while patrolling New Pages i've had to wait around for 25-30 minutes due to the lack of an admin, hitting F5 on my watchlist every few seconds to make sure people dont remove the speedy tags on their pages. Did You Know is my second and not-so-commonly-picked area to focus on; I've written quite a few and there's been occasions where the DYK's haven't been switched over for several hours.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I tend to focus on obscure area's people haven't heard off, having encountered the common problem that area's I'm an expert on have already written about by someone far more knowledgeable than myself, so I can't claim any FA's or GA's. The 21 DYK's (and another three confirmed and awaiting posting) are something I'm quite proud of, although I know (within reason) that having a DYK on an article is not a measure of the article's quality. I did once try for a Featured List (List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead) which didn't go through but i'm still proud of; see before and after. The before is actually a bit deceptive; Most of those bluelinks were red when I started, but I created a load of articles (I think about 100, mainly stubs, about 10 decent big'uns) to bluelink it all up.
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: No major conflicts that I can really think of. There was an argument over the clash between Wikipedia:Radio Wikipedia and Wikipedia:WikiUpdate which ended with uninvolved users generally telling everyone to shut the hell up. I was partially involved in that, and since then i've tried to serve as the voice of reason rather than the voice of "quick! more pitchforks!", such as at User:SoWhy's RfA, moving the discussion from the RfA before it could become the main focus of attention and trying to calm people down.

Optional Question from Davewild

4. Do you think you have addressed the concerns raised in your previous RFA's? If yes, could you explain how? Thanks. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:I believe I've addressed them, yes. The issues in the first two RfA's were no-brainers; even I (as I am now) wouldn't have me; I had barely 3000 edits of recategorising and general wiki-gnoming, a wildly fluctuating edit count between months and wouldn't have even known what the abbreviations CSD, XfD or ANI even meant. The third one was more interesting; some of the opposes came from me having a cynical and slightly offensive atheism-related userbox on my page (similar to that of SoWhy's RfA) while most were to do with real editing concerns. Chief among them were a complete lack of article work, bite-y tone, lack of WP:ANI contributions and some really inappropriate MfDing of userpages that verged (barely) on policy violations. I took some time off constant CSD and Recent Changes patrol, which definitely helped the stress levels and thereby the biteyness; since then I've tried to be more polite to new users (especially considering that, after a year and a half of edits, I knew barely more than they did). I've also been doing a lot of article work and have developed a real love of filling in redlinks and expanding articles; i've had 23 DYK's so far, all but 2 for new articles. I've also worked on trying to get the List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead (see diffs in Q.2) up to Featured status; it didn't pass due to silly grammar and style issues, but I'm going to try again once I've finished my current "things to do" (which stands at about 20 bio's, getting a legal court to GA status and 5 lists of redlinks). ANI contributions are something I've been more involved in, and that and the inappropriate MfDing and so on have been helped by me trying to abide by the spirit rather than the text; the rule should be that if you have to twist and think to work out how something should be deleted, it shouldn't. Another (rather embarassing) complaint at my RfA was that I failed to capitalise my i's; this I've corrected and now make a conscious effort to do so. Ironholds 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Wisdom89

5. What do you consider to be your biggest weakness on Wikipedia? Once identified, do you feel it will/can hamper your ability to work as an administrator?
A: I'm not the best person with the english language, by which I mean that I'll never churn out an entire FA or perfectly-phrased soliloquy. I don't feel this should harm my work as an administrator; I can fix my phrasing by simply working through the sentence in my head a few times (although this can be a long process when dealing with 40KB of text, hence my FA example). Ironholds 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from AGK
6. You previously edited under the O keyes account, and indeed had two RfAs whilst using that persona. Why (excluding any privacy reasons, which I will understand if omitted in any response) did you change your username? Did the change have anything to do with avoiding the somewhat curious "...4" after your RfA (specifically, one user requesting an RfA four times as one account may be regarded as power-hungry)? Anthøny ✉ 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Nothing like that; after all, the previous 3 still show up in a little box on the side. As cliched and, at best symbolic, as it sounds, I fancied a change. I previously linked to my old account contributions on my userpage for the sake of honesty, but it seems to have got lost in the shuffle of redesigns. Ironholds 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. That response seems to put any worries I previously had to bed. Thanks for responding. Anthøny ✉ 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; thanks for bringing it up, actually, I'd completely forgotten to link the account name in as part of my userpage redesign, and this reminded me. Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Option question for IMatthew
7. In your own words, what is the role of an administrator on Wikipedia?
A.None of the normal phrases are applicable to the role, to be honest, although I use "banhammer" sometimes because I find it amusing. Banhammer implies that their job is to hit people with the heavy end when they mess up, "mop and bucket" makes them sound like some kind of Ubermensch, superior to us mere mortals and tasked with cleaning up our foolish, ignorant mistakes, which again is heavily inaccurate. An administrator to me is a user who has shown, through the RfA process, that he is trusted by the community (or at least the microcosm that spends time around RfA). He/She (lets say "he" for the rest of this for simplicity) is granted tools additional to those that a standard user can access because he has shown that he can be trusted not to misuse them (although misuse does, on occasion, happen). Being an administrator does not make you "better" than other users, it simply makes you more communally trusted. I'm sorry if I've repeated myself at any stage, but I believe that emphasising the difference between "more trusted" and "better" is something that needs to be firmly ingrained in peoples heads.Ironholds 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Garden.
8. How seriously do you feel the role of admin is taken on Wikipedia? Do you feel that you agree with this?
A.The role of administrator is taken too seriously and not too seriously depending on the user. Many people seem to go between "adminship is a big deal" and "to quoth Jimbo, adminship is not a big deal" without looking at the details. Becoming an admin and the title of administrator is not a big deal, but using the tools and responsibilities correctly is. This is my (personal) opinion and something I feel is oft-overlooked. So in a nutshell: People take it too seriously and not seriously enough, with very few people in the middle. But then everyone with an opinion has the (majority) of people on either side of their fine line. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Will having the admin status hamper your article contributions? Will you continue to do both of the highly important roles of sysop and editor?
A.My editing time is normally divided thus: Write a bio/list. If I finish it in one session, write another one. If i'm bored of writing, do some quick New Page Patrolling or investigate any AfD's around, including those I start as part of my new page work. Holding administrator tools would not reduce my "proper editing" output since I genuinely enjoy writing; If I get bored of writing for an hour and look through New Pages I can actually get more work done in that position as an administrator, since after tagging a group of articles I don't have to sit around for 20 minutes on my Watchlist hitting F5 to make sure there's no improper removal of tags. CSD work and so on also gets boring on its own; that combined with my love for writing on one side, and the grind of article creation on the other means that neither type of contribution is going to take over my editing time completely.
10. Do you feel having so many RfAs makes one seem power hungry? How can you quash these claims by way of what you would like the tools for?
A.Three previous RfA's indicates "this person was not judged a fit person to hold the tools" not "this person wants power for powers sake". I've applied for admin each time because I feel I can do good with the tools, not because I want to be some kind of uber dictator; I think my answers to previous questions show that that's exactly the opposite of my opinion of what an Administrator is.

Questions 11 through 15

edit
Question from Caulde
11. In your opinion, what do you think is the most commonly applied of all Wikipedia's 'policies' and why so? Do you agree it should be the most prevalent? Caulde 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most widely enforced and applied policy is Wikipedia:BLP without a doubt, and for good reason. Wikipedia is one of the most widely viewed sites in the world, with a massively high search engine rating; "jennifer aniston" in google, for example, brings Wikipedia up in second place, and many people, however unwisely given complaints about its accuracy, use Wikipedia as a primary reference tool. Celebrities are people, and information posted on Wikipedia can shape how people view them, be it standard biographical information or offensive lies. As such, Wikipedia should constantly adhere to the policy, both to prevent any offense or harm coming to the articles subject and to prevent any kind of legal repercussions on the foundation. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Do you feel that upon failing three RfA's your best course of action is to return with an experimental RfA? Please answer with consideration to the regular cycle of discussions concerning "how to fix RfA", "the mop is no big deal", "power hunger", and "drama for the sake of drama". Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite offensive that people would assume that, although I can see why they would in a way. My choice of an experimental process is nothing to do with my previous failures under the old system, it is simply that someone has to go first, and I had previously considered rerunning anyway, having received several "I'd support you looking at your contributions now" messages and also a nomination offer. RfA discussions are like economic cycles; the boom and bust always comes round again. Every so often there is a mass debate where everyone agrees the current system is broken but nobody can agree exactly how it should be fixed. I decided it would be a good idea to just go right ahead, cut through the mass-debating and just run with a new idea. If it works, we've offered a possibility of a new system; if it doesn't, we've ruled something out for future debates. Either way we've made progress, although I doubt the debate will ever be resolved (My normal phrase is "when you have two wikipedians, you have three opinions"). I don't think its for the sake of drama, as I said earlier, people agree things need changing, but not what; should the process be reformed? The general philosophy? if it is process, what should we reform it to? I feel constantly debating over what is or is not the best way to reform something is not productive in something that comes up again and againIronholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Jameson L. Tai
13. How do you feel about being the first RfA to test the new RfA process? Do you feel this new process is better than the other three processes you've experienced? How?
A.I'm fine with the idea; I volunteered for it after all :). This process is significantly different, in some obvious ways and some less obvious ones. I feel the system is better in that it seeks to test the candidate rather than base it on their past activities. If someone joins soley to become admin then, with the appropriate caution, they can create a perfect resume. 4 days of being probed on everything from process to process reform is more difficult to fake. This isn't something that affects me, obviously (anyone looking at my first 2 RfA's can see that if my aim was to become admin I did a piss-poor job of it), but it might help weed out a couple of "bad apples" that might otherwise get in, and maybe help out a couple of potentially fantastic admins who's contributions don't fit the typical "requirements" for an administrator. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. How do you see Wikipedia in five years? What types of improvements or changes to do you see happening?
A. I'm not sure if we'll go through another catalytic process like that of 2003/2004, but I do see Wikipedia growing a lot bigger. I'm also thinking we'll see a mass shift in the next few years to quality over quantity. We currently have 10 active proposals for defining the WP:N guidelines to a finer degree, including things as varied as toys and political parties. Drawing a finer line in the sand will firmly keep out articles that don't have a place and, with a reducing number of new articles in relation to the growth of the userbase, switch the focus to improving the quality of articles. At the same time the near-current introduction of things such as flagged revisions should reduce vandalism, raising Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia, rather than as happened last week, when 3 of my university tutors in seperate speeches about dissertations told us not to touch wikipedia with a vandal-encrusted pole. These could together cause problems; instruction creep through things like larger and more specific notability guidelines could bog the encyclopedia down, and following the principle of Incrementalism this could prove a problem; "items which were once deemed to be insufficiently notable to have articles may eventually prove notable enough for an entry" will not have an entry created due to the increasing complexity of process making overturning outdated rules difficult at best. Overall wikipedia will become more established and/or more bogged down in paperwork, although some would say this has been happening right from the beginning. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. There has been a shift of how the community votes for RfA. Please list your personal guidelines of what you look for when supporting or opposing a candidate.
A.
I'm going to post this in list for for simplicities sake, I'm afraid
  • A high, regular edit count is required, emphasis on the regular. If the candidate made 20,000 edits a month 6 months ago (a bit OTT as an example, I know) and few since I have no way of seeing if he (for simplicity) has a good grasp of Wikipedia policy as it currently stands.
    FA's and GA's coming out of their ears is not a requirement. Despite points that admin tools are for varied tasks, most are used for two things: removing vandalism, and preventing it happening again. People argue that an admin should have a firm grasp of all policy; this is not a requirement for me. If a user has 100+ AIV reports and 1000 CSD's, all good nominations, then I trust he is an experienced editor in regards to those areas. If the users other contributions show a level of maturity and civility then I also trust that the user will not head right off to an area he has no firm grasp of; an AV editor is, when given the tools, not going to jump right into mediation work.
    Lack of blocks, general incivility or immaturity in the last 3 months (or more, depending on the ol' gut). I don't need to see that a user is a squeaky clean, perfect person who is cheery and lovely to everyone regardless of their behavior; this in most cases smacks of a user either in it for the tools or starting each day with a vallium enema. If a user has shown in their recent contributions either change or the ability to change, I will support or go neutral (again, the gut).Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 16 through 21

edit
Optional questions from Erik the Red 2
16. Which has priority, WP:V or WP:BLP? In other words, should a verifiable fact be added to an article if it infringes of the privacy of a living person?
In my opinion, BLP. If a perfectly verifiable fact infringes on a persons privacy it should be removed; we're an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine or telephone directory. We have a moral responsibility, upon finding the address and phone number of Jennifer Aniston, to make sure that she isn't phoned day and night by everyone who can use a keyboard, and a legal responsibility to make sure that the Foundation isn't sued. Here in a world of near-perfect anonymity, should a user choose it, it is easy to forget privacy concerns. Think how unnerving people like Daniel Brandt are to any Wikipedia user who raises his head above the parapet, and imagine if his site was visited by millions of people yearly. The argument that it is "verifiable, publicly findeable" information may hold sway in a law of court, but morally it is a different story; regardless of whether or not the person is a celebrity, and "should be used to it", people have a basic, undeniable right to privacy. Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. A user makes an insertion of a potential BLP violation, which is reverted by another user. There is a revert war, and the first user reports the second to WP:AN3 after 4 reverts. Do you block the second user?
No. It isn't a case of "oh, the second user reverted first", as I mentioned before the maintenance of high quality, accurate BLP articles is of the utmost importance, and the 3RR policy specifically mentions the reversion of libelous or possibly damaging BLP information as an exception to the rule. I would, however, advise the second user of what he should have done and should do in future situations (Get in a third party or admin before it got to the 3RR violation point). The first user would be informed of our policies on BLP's, and again asked to get a third opinion in next time. I'd then keep an eye on both of them and the article itself until things cool down. Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. A user is reported to AIV for vandalism after making 5 vandalistic edits. However, the first edit was reverted and the user wasn't warned, meaning that the user has not committed any vandalism after the final warning. Do you block the user?
If his only contributions, including those 4 are vandalistic, yes, indefinitely; regardless of a "final warning" if three warnings of progressive severity which specifically mention blocks are not enough to dissuade him he's unlikely to be a helpful contributor.Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Kww (talk · contribs)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D Ordnance Battalion, you fought pretty hard for the losing side: you wanted deletion, and it wound up being kept. You kept your cool and argued calmly, which is a good thing, but something struck me about this AFD: no one, including you, referenced any existing guidelines or policies. MrPrada came closest, referencing MILMOS, but that hasn't got much weight in an AFD discussion. I have three questions related to this AFD discussion:

19. How much weight does an individual editor's intuitive opinion of notability count for in an AFD?
AIf he can back it up, as much as his vocal skills allow. AfD is a debate: If a user is backed up by policy, he has the upper hand, but notability policies are interpreted; you can't just apply the same policy to every situation under the sun. If a users intuitive opinion of notability can be expressed clearly (as I seem to be failing to do, heh) in relation to the policy and the situation at hand then his opinion should have just as much weight as anyone elses. Whether or not the other users involved agree with his intuition and interpretation is another matter, but someone should not be discounted just because he used words instead of TLA's.
20. You stated during the debate I dont think press coverage for military units is a good way of defining their notability. How do you think our policy of WP:NOT#NEWS and our guideline of WP:N interact with that argument?
AThe press coverage argument was based on the point that, as a unit involved in a war, there are no doubt going to be a load of newspaper articles, particularly since they deal with IED's, a well-known presence in the current wars. The issue is: are they independently notable? WP:NOT#NEWS says that not everything in the news requires an article, with the general rule being that if something/someone is notable beyond a single event, they're probably notable enough for an article. Me saying "delete" was not in relation to the NEWS policy, however, but rather to my interpretation of the WP:N policy. WP:N accepts "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My problem with the provided sources was that they were not, for the most part, "significant coverage"; an unexploded bomb is found near their base, they defuse it, they write a newspaper article about the bomb that, as the unit defused it, makes mention of the unit and gets an officer in for a quote. How does that make the unit notable? Bomb defusal is their job; if the bomb had been closer to another engineer battalion's base, they would have been tasked with defusing the bomb. Several of the newspaper reports are from the Yakima Herald Republic; the base that unit is at uses the Yakima Training Center for live firing; hardly a bastion of independent neutrality. The majority of the newspaper sources were either insubstantial or not independent. Many military units, in a time of war, are going to get newspaper reports due to their presence in a theatre of action; nothing sells newspapers more than war and bloodshed. But does this make the unit notable in itself, or as part of the military? My feeling is that the unit would not be considered notable regardless of training or their "elite" status if it wasn't for their presence in a news-worthy arena. Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. If you were the closing admin, how would you evaluate the consensus? What weight would you give to each editor's arguments, and why?
AI'd probably close as "keep" myself. While no policies or guidelines were really mentioned (other than a MILHIST essay, which doesn't really count) the newspaper reports make a "keep" the better idea. As much as I believe it should be deleted, the argument I made at the time isn't strong enough to convince a closing admin. In a situation when it's marginal, a keep is the better idea; it can always be renominated, and it's best not to set a precedent of "delete" since restoring deleted articles is much more difficult than renominating a kept one. Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 21 through 25

edit
Optional Question from Balloonman
Preface Wow, I consider myself to be one of the tougher reviewers at RfA as I oppose 43% of the time, but you seem to take the cake. As of this moment, you've participated in exactly 40 RfA's. Of those 40 RfA's, you've opposed 75% of the time. You've only supported 10 candidates---4 of your supports have come in the past two weeks!
22 Why do you oppose so often?
AI like to follow a WP-specific variant of Speaker Denison's rule; to wit, it is much more difficult to have a bad admin after he has succeeded than it is to renominate a good candidate who has failed. As such, when I vote on RfA's it's normally with the intention of preventing someone I feel could be a bad admin from getting the tools; good candidates will garner enough supports that one from me wouldn't make a difference. Actually it'd be 9 supports; 2 were the FoxyLoxy RfA and then reboot.Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23 I know you are aware of the recent discussions here related to the lack of new admins. How might this discussion affect your future involvement here?
AAttitudes are a difficult thing to change; changing the opinions and temperament of over 100 editors? I do partially buy that attitudes are a problem, but it's far to difficult a thing to effectively change. The discussion has given me food for thought, but much of it doesn't apply to me; when I contribute to RfA's I always try and be civil, not contribute to drama (as at SoWhy's RfA, although that simply moved it to a different page) and not generally tear the candidate a new one. The comments on SNOW's, however, has made me think; I feel i'm not going to recommend any kind of SNOWing in future, although I have in the past recommended to a candidate on their talkpage that they withdraw. A fuller process would give the candidate a better idea of what he is doing wrong; I know I learnt more from my third RfA than the first and second, which were early closers.
In terms of "RfA philosophy" the discussion has made me reconsider that, in the past, i've opposed on maybe a single difference. As seen in my RfA criterion above, within reason this is no longer a reason to oppose (on its own). The discussion, however, was the straw that broke the camels back; my viewpoint had already changed before then, just like my massive shift from deletionism in early '08. Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24 You've had 3 failed RfA's, in the discussion, an established admin wrote: One of the biggest problems with RfA's are the Chronic opposers and the sheep that pile-on per them. There are some bitter people on this project who have been on the receiving end of some RFA abuse and now they're hell bent on bringing down anyone they can. It's obvious in looking over the RFAs from recent months, and it's terribly unfortunate. It seems to be a "if I can't have admin, no one can" sort of mentality. What would you say to people who share this view that applying this statement to you would be a mischaracterization?
AI'm taking the question to mean "what can you say to people who assume that you may be one of these 'bitter people'"; if I'm misunderstanding, my apologies. I've never taken that kind of viewpoint; as I said, looking back on it I (as I am now) wouldn't have voted for me on my first two RfA's, where I was woefully underprepared and inexperienced. I can't possibly hold any "grudge" with the community for those, nor for most of my third, where some excellent points were made. The only slightly frustrating part of the third RfA was the "userbox opposes". A users personal biases should not be an issue as long as they don't come up in his contributions; everyone is biased in some way. I understand where people were coming from, however, and appreciate that in most cases it was not the sole reason, and I hold no "grudge" there either, something evidenced at SoWhy's RfA where a user (Andrew Kelly) expressed a view that he "couldn't vote in an atheist" as a strict christian. Despite a disagreement with this sort of viewpoint I will defend to the hilt someones right to express it, on my RfA and on any other, and trust that, should it get particularly ridiculous, the closing 'crat will discount it. I have no grudge with the community, RfA group or otherwise, and i'd point out that someone who had this view of "if I can't have admin, no one can" would have voted oppose consistently; if I'm a voter with a grudge, I'm really bad at my job! Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xenocidic

25. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A:Deny it. His previous behavior gives no indication that he'll be anything other than a nuisance, and the posting of a nice pretty unblock request immediately after calling me a cockfag makes him look like he's simply being a weasle and trying to butter me up. If the 11:18 post had been the most recent one, maybe an unblock with a strict eye kept on him, but vandalism following his sole edit shows that it's more like he's done contributing usefully than "done vandalising". Ironholds 16:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This question struck me as a bit of a "trick"; I was of the opinion administrators shouldn't fiddle with their own blocks. I've left the answer anyway; to hide it would undermine the process. Ironholds

Questions 26 through 30

edit

Optional question from Wronkiew

26 You disclosed on your userpage, perhaps jokingly, that you have a history of mental illness. Are there any conditions in which this would interfere with your ability to participate in consensus reality?
No, no joke. I suffer from now-mild clinical depression, helpfully controlled with a little white pill once a morning. I've also got Asperger syndrome, although too midly to be properly useful. You know those wonderful autistic savants who can do fantastic things with their minds? Yeah, i'm nothing like that. I can't think of any situation in which these would affect my judgement or perspective; one is nicely under control, and the other is too weedy to be good for anything. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pedro

27. One of the key abilities in administrators is the ability to accurately judge consensus, wether it be at WP:AFD, deciding to archive a discussion, or to make edits requested on the talk of a protected article. If you find that there is no consenus for granting you +sysop (i.e. before the "voting" begins on the 11th and from a close reading of the discussion here) will you withdraw this RFA?
A.Yes. The only reason to continue would be a "lets see what I'm doing wrong" thing, but if there are enough signs that people will be voting oppose I expect them to have reasoning attached, making waiting around a waste of time. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive response. Pedro :  Chat  13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:EdJohnston I'd like to provide a central place for you to respond to issues mentioned by Oppose or Neutral voters in your last RfA, if you care to do so. If you already answered any of these above, then you don't need to here. I numbered these for convenience. Add your answer under each item if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

28.not enough article work
I've been working on articles almost constantly since my first one, Thomas Prince in mid july, one I'm very proud of as a first stab (although I need to get round to adding inlines at some point). I've just completed a fully referenced five-fold expansion of an article, and my 23rd DYK was stuck up just yesterday evening. Article work is no longer an issue; I've grown to love creating and expanding articles (As I type this I've got another tab open with an article I'm expanding). Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29.the candidate seems a bit too biased in regards to deletion/inclusion criteria
I was very deletion-friendly, yes. That's changed completely, although I can't pinpoint an exact moment when that happened, I think it was more of a gradual change. I think most deletionists probably experience a slide towards the middle at some point. Point is: I wouldn't define myself as a "deletionist" any more or even an inclusionist; more a policyist. If policy says it should be deleted and common sense raises no questions, I'll go with delete, but if you're having to twist or "interpret" notability policies it's a good sign that the article is worthy; bad ones would be in violation of WP:N off the bat without any kind of word games. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30.you have little experience of WP:ANI, something infamously valuable as an administrator
It isn't something I've had much reason to look at. Disruptive editors I encounter during my AV patrols are normally so disruptive I can just send them to AIV, where I have 172 reports as of the beginning of this RfA. I participated once, I believe, during the WikiUpdate/Radio Wikipedia thing (which was a bloody stupid ANI report, I'm glad I wasn't the one who submitted it) but as I said, my editing doesn't lead me to the point where I get involved there. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 31 through 40

edit
31.I am concerned with your lack of experience in basically anything non-Twinkle, especially in article contribution
This again has changed; see my answer to question 1 for most of it. As well as the article creation and expansion I've also done quite a bit of Gnomish work without twinkly assistance, and I've even had to do CSD reports manually (shock horror!). Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32.I've seen some pretty bitey and borderline reports to WP:UAA, which I can only assume is an area where they will end up working.
Definitely something that has changed. UAA reports I make now are neutrally toned and only if I'm certain. Example from my last report: A user who's name is something like CarlssonPR. He creates a db-spamtastic article on a housing development in area X, and searching for Carlsson PR brings up a PR company in area X; clearly here for promotional purposes. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33.I am concerned about the user's lack of non-twinkle experience. If I was you, I would have waited for a reply on admin coaching before self-noming. I personally am scared about his only 32 mainspace talk edits.
Lack of non-twinkling already answered. Self-noming, here not an issue; as for the admin coaching; I still haven't recieved any coaching response. Mainspace talk is 130; the article-writing area's I work in are not those many people frequent (13th century civil servants, anyone?) so there isn't much to say to people; I do run into users (User:Choess springs to mind, an excellent writer) but if I'm making a general comment about an article (example was "Is it "Lord Chief Justice" for the court of common pleas or "Chief Justice"? My source says one, yours says another") then the quickest way to make the user in question aware of my query is their user talk page, not article talk. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34.I was floating around on MfD earlier and my main thought on seeing your massive pile of contributions to it was that "Wow, this guy needs to relax and stop scouring peoples' userspaces for trivial violations",
Another thing I've stopped, something related to my shift from deletionism and my "stop acting like a jerk and contribute to areas of the encyclopedia people actually go to" attitude change. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35.things like the MfD and other errors around the deletion process make me too wary to support.
See the question above for the first bit. As for deletion: User:Dlohcierekim below says I've tagged about 100 pages, three of which have been rejected, and in two of those cases my original tagging was valid. The normal reason I find for rejected tags is (for example) a user creates a spamtastic article. I tag it as db-spam, the user removes everything spammy and an admin gets there before I do. When I make a mistake in CSD's or the problem is corrected, I remove the tags; I know i'm not above making base errors. I've on occasion helped people reference and fulfill WP:N correctly when there's a subject that should be kept but the article on that subject doesn't fulfill guidelines; see Bang Bang Eche for example (although that'n needs to be referenced, funny, I thought i'd told him how to do that). Thanks for the valid questions, btw; if this format picks on I think "address concerns at the last RfA" should be a general set of questions for those with previous requests. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the last 500 deleted contribs (when I looked that day), atleast 350 were successful CSD taggings. Ironholds has a total of 3095 deleted contribs. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional pointer to that: I've never had a deleted article. 99% of those are therefore AfD's, PRODs or CSD's, with a percentage for maybe something I Wikignomed and was later deleted (although with the articles I look at I can't see that happening). Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from PXK T /C
36. Do you think consensus can change based on new Reliable sources? PXK T /C 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean "If I provide Reliable sources counter to the opinion of Consensus, which has no reliable/few reliable sources, should consensus change" then yes. There is a philosophical theory in epistemology called the Three Condition Theory which sums up my view; in order for something to be considered "fact" (lets say A says that X is true) A must believe X, be able to present evidence X is true and lastly, X must be true. If consensus believes X, has evidence X is true but later, more substantial evidence turns up that X is false, consensus should change. one piece of verifiable information trumps a thousand Tom, Dick, and Harry editors simply agreeing that something took place. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from jc37
(If you feel you have already answered one of these specific questions above, please point to that response.)
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 37. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A:If the editor is being particularly disruptive, either through page edits, inappropriate behavior, sockpuppetry or personal attacks. Other less obviously-disruptive ones are violation of the username policy (not to say User:shitwanks isn't obvious, but promotional names or names designed to be similar to a current user for purposes of harassment may not immediately appear to be disruptive to people not familiar with that company/user). Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: In terms of current pages, in situations of edit-warring, persistent vandalism (see Ancient Olympic Games, a page I hang around, which for some unknown reason became a target for IP vandals a few months ago) or to protect from damage to the foundation (such as libel-y edits to BLP's). In terms of deleted pages, normally they're "salted" (i.e "salting the earth to prevent crops grow") and protected to stop the recreation of deleted pages that are a) being recreated a large number of times with the same sort of content as the deleted version) or b) again, potentially damaging to the foundation. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A:Easiest, it seems: When it violates the speedy deletion criteria. Recreation of pages deleted through XfD also comes under this, although I encounter quite a few people on New Page Patrol who've taken "pages previously deleted through a deletion discussion" to be "stuff I CSD'd 5 minutes ago", and when I've done so I inform them of the correct reasons for that tag. Nonsense seems to be another one misused as "anything I don't understand"; again, I take pains to inform users I encounter misapplying this tag as to its correct use. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: In a situation where common sense would indicate action X should be taken, but policy says action Y, either because the writers hadn't forseen the situation around X or because there are individual nuances. Wikilawyers seem to take it as "Do what the hell you want, and damn policy"; that's crap. It should only be applied when the final result is beneficial to the project as a whole, not when it allows you to one-up a user correcting your mistake. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A:First things first: Consensus is entirely different to a vote. A vote is to do with numbers, consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments of users on various "sides" of the dispute. Talkpage "arguments" in terms of editing disputes normally have references, sources and strength of policy as their "aces", while XfD is more closely based on policy and its interpretation in respects to what counts as an independent, verifiable source, for example. DRV is different to talkpages and (in some respects) XfD in that it is more closely based on policy than wordplay; users either feel the original XfD/CSD was correct, or that it was incorrect, citing issues with the CSD criterion used, and so on. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 39. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A:A temporary page protection action on the article in question while I assess what's going on. I'd then message the users involved and inform them (if they didn't already know) as to the three revert rule, and guidelines on determining consensus. I'd then discover, hopefully through the talkpage (since most article discussion goes on there for obvious reasons) the consensus as to the article content, and inform both users about the current consensus and that, should they continue to argue and revert back-and-forth, I'd block them for a certain period, and that any issues they may have should be debated on the talk page, not through throwing the article back and forth. I'd keep an eye on the discussion, page and their subsequent edits, and any subsequent issues would (assuming there are more attempts at mediation) lead to a case at WP:RFM. It's rather long-winded I know, but I prefer not to throw off competent users due to an editing dispute when discussion might solve the problem and keep the users. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: "World Peace". Oh wait, is this not Miss USA? The stereotypical answer would be "because I believe, as an administrator, I can help the project", which is perfectly true but skimps on the details. I focus on three main area's of editing: Article creation, New Page Patrol and XfD. With administrator tools I could do more work in two of those three areas, and two out of three aint bad. As a New Page patroller I've spent frustrating half-hours hitting F5 on my watchlist to make sure users aren't removing CSD tags from their own article, since there's no admin around to delete the damn things. An extra admin in that pool would lighten the work load for a lot of people; I could've spent that half hour patrolling instead of repetitively button-pressing, for example. We're currently suffering from a constantly increasing userbase and a constantly shrinking admin pass rate; at some point, I fear, the pool of active admins itself will start to shrink. If I can slow that even a bit, not by mind-numbingly voting support on every request that comes my way but by serving as an effective admin, then I'm serving the project simply by being present. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 41 through 50

edit

More questions from Balloonman

  • 41. While I've commented on your RfA, I haven't really vetted you yet. Looking at your talk page, I find that you have one of the more annoying types of talk pages that can hurt your chances. For example, this interaction doesn't reflect positively on you, especially when you only read one side of the conversation. Do you know if the case was ever resolved? Was it a Sock?
  • A.That was related to a sockpuppetry case Arbiteroftruth had opened up which I, quite frankly, felt was ridiculous, and you can see here. He was saying an account as a sockpuppet on the grounds that 1) he edited two areas another sockpuppet had previously done (and also edited various other areas, I'd like to add) and 2) the fact that these edits were useful just showed "he was trying to establish legitimacy" (to which I pointed out that a sockpuppet trying to establish legitimacy through good edits looked exactly like somebody making good edits, and was hardly grounds for a sock case). The case was closed with a "there's no way in hell you can link this account" and the account in question hasn't been blocked, so I'm assuming nothing came of it later, either. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 42. You've indicated that your 23 DYK's is proof that you've now got experience writing articles. Looking at about 10 of your DYK's I've noticed that they are all stub/start class at the most. I think they are all less than your contribution to them was about 4500 bytes. Some are short on sources... have you written anything of real substance?
Optional question from jc37
  • 43 One of the things that others seem to be finding concerning is your (let's say) "blunt" way to comment (both in RfA and elsewhere). A question of bite-y-ness, and perhaps uncivility, and at the least seeming to not convey collegiate good will, or Wikiquette. (An indication of not feeling the WikiLove.) How do you feel that you can re-assure those commenting here that this isn't an indication of all of the above, and further that this isn't an indication of further likelihood of what might be considered "untrustworthy behaviour", such as inappropriate action with the tools and responsibilities that adminship conveys? - jc37 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A:

The fact that, out of my X thousand edits they could only find those? The RfA opposes cited (the ones I made, that is, not the ones based on my opposes) were valid. Tutthoth-Ankhre, for example; I said that I the statement had a "severe annoyance factor", which is how I classify someone saying "I have a an edit somewhere aroun 450. now, I know what you're thinking. But listen. Jimbo Wales said the Adminship is no big deal. So why not? I leave you there." It sounds wiki-lawyerish at best. I don't see how the third oppose is at all bitey or incivil; I simply stated the facts. The internet is hardly the best way for transmitting emotive content, and even if it was, one man's honesty is anothers incivility.

As possibly-smug as it might sound depending on how this comes across, the fact that you could find maybe 10 issues out of 10550 should at least partially show that I'm not a deliberately bitey person. Opposing at RfA's has nothing to do with the tools whatsoever (except reducing the number of "RfA friends" you get). My record in relation to admin tools (the stuff I can get at, such as CSD's and AV work) is excellent, not that I'm blowing my own trumpet or anything; Caulde described my CSD work as "outstanding". None of my past bluntness has any relation to the tools or, in 99% of cases, even the mainspace, at all; this is not suddenly going to change if I get the tools. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Aitias
44. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. Mainly if the hangon tag is fairly obviously there simply to stick a stumbling-block in the way of deletion and keep the page visible for as long as possible rather than because the writer honestly feels it should be there; if it has been there for 3 hours with no talkpage explanation written then the writer is pretty obviously not interested in keeping the article but more into having it linger for as long as possible. Personal attacks and other massive BLP violations will be deleted immediately regardless of hangon tag; there is nothing you can say or write on a talkpage that will justify such things. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. If it is fairly obvious the user has a clue stick. A lack of blocks, horribly inappropriate AV and CSD work and outright-offensive comments is enough; if a users contributions persuade me that, based on his previous work, he is unlikely to be a liability with rollback, i'll grant it (although that's a rather general statement, I think everyone would agree with that).
46. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A.Only in the situations where 1) there is no possibility of taking a free use one (highly unlikely, but possible) or 2) when the persons notability rests on their appearance, and again, a free use one would be unavailable; example, if the Blue Man Group broke up and publicly swore they would never perform in their costumes, reunite and so on, and there were no available free use images, a non free-use image would be acceptable, as their appearance and mannerisms are a large part of their fame. Should they then get back together, raising the possibility of subsequent free use images, that could be tricky, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A.I would not consider it a conflict of interest, in that that implies I might have reacted differently if no interaction between me and the IP existed. If I have warned that user that their next vandaltastic edit will result in a block, and they make an edit vandalistic in nature, then regardless of the target I would have responded in the same way. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Optional question from PXK T /C
  • 48 How much time after passing will you spend reading WP:NAS?
Around a week, although I'm not sure how much that works out in in wiki-time. For now I might skip the "how to make a user an account creator" course in that that isn't an area I can ever see myself working in; if I do end up doing so, I can simply come back and learn then. Learning something I have no intention of ever using is not high on my list of priorities. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ironholds before commenting.

Discussion

edit
As he who asked question 12, what doesn't that have to do with adminship? Anyone ready to be an admin should know better than to pull something like this. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Something like this" being experimenting with the RfA process? Ironholds 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Which should not be taken to mean that I think this is a bad thing in and of itself. I just think that anyone ready to be an admin would know that you have to cross your T's and dot your I's in a contemporary RfA, and then game the heck out of the system to pass. Don't take this to mean that I intend to oppose you. Instead, understand that this will probably garner more tendentious opposition. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<reply to H after EC> It's a good question, but I disagree with the idea that this is something a prospective admin should not have done. Interestingly, there is very little discussion of the candidate at this point. Looks like the discussion is an integral part of the voting part. Or vice versa. I think that if we make any change, it would be to have a separate question-answer part followed by discussion/voting. Question-answer/discussion followed by voting is not working, IMHO. Dlohcierekim 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-voting discussion of candidate's qualities.

  • Is this for discussion of the process or the candidate? Anyway, here goes. I expect to support. I like the answers to the questions, for the most part. I came up with nothing damning in my review of the last 500 contribs. Don't believe will abuse/misuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw like 500 successful taggings since August. Only one of the rejected ones did I have a real concern over. The other two were understandable given the content at the time. Also, I saw where he removed his own speedy template. That shows the sort of care I find encouraging. Also saw a talk page where he took time to explain to a new user till the new user understood. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree! My post was not a direct response to you and had no opinion attached with it. To tell the truth it was just an attempt to get some discussion going. IMHO we should use this interim time to discuss the candidate not just ask hundreds of questions. Icewedge (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, 100 %. Cheers, and good night. Dlohcierekim 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from WilliamH

I've met Ironholds in person. He is clearly dedicated to the project which has certainly benefited from his efforts - he seems to have another DYK every time I take a glance at his profile, for instance.

While the fact that I actually know this person should add no more weight to my opinion (I simply feel it's important to mention because I'm in a position unique to this discussion): there is an issue that concerns me. Do I think Ironholds will become an admin? Somewhere down the line, yes, I daresay there is an appropriate time. If you were to ask me now though, the answer would be that that time has not yet come. This aura of "not quite" was confirmed to me via an MSN conversation yesterday, where it transpired that Ironholds, by his own words, "didn't know" how to use the logs.

Keeping the peace with individuals while at the same time, dispassionately and undramatically pursuing the interests of the community is not an easy task, and while I hate to be such an awkward spanner in this new machine, I think it would be bit of an insult if I did not bring this forward. The bottom line of it is, is that there is simply no way I can support any request for adminship where the candidate learns how to use the public logs 2 hours after having filed his RFA. WilliamH (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see Ironholds' comments on this, if he wishes to make any. Giggy (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Question for the talk page; could such a comment not be made in normal RfA? :-)[reply]
I don't really have much to say, to be honest. WilliamH informed me he'd be mentioning this here, and I even recommended he do so; I don't want to undermine this whole thing to try and boost my chances of passing. The public logs are not something I've ever really had to use; the only real thing it's useful for that things like "contributions" aren't is blocks. In article creation, blocks and so on don't come up, and blocks I apply for at AIV and so on are normally indefinite due to the nature of them (mass spamming, attack pages, so on). The lack of knowledge about public logs does not indicate "there are a plethora of things this user is ignorant about", although I'm sure there are some things about wikipedia I don't know, but if people feel this is a sign of possible unpreparedness they're welcome to ask questions relating to the use of MediaWiki functions, processes and policy, and so on to ascertain if it is a sign of more widespread ignorance (which I don't believe it is, but then if I don't know something, I don't know I don't know it). Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I wasn't familiar with or used anything beyond new pages, recent changes and watchlisting before starting my own RfA. I only really learned about them or applied their use in new admin school. Question is, where does the balance lie between demonstrating your capability of performing admin duties and learning how to carry out tasks "on the job"? Gazimoff 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I don't think it matters. We shouldn't expect candidates to know how to perform all admin tasks, or even things such as utilizing the logs. Specifically speaking on logs, learning how to use them probably took, what, like 5 minutes? It's not a big deal, and I don't see it as a reason to withhold support. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Using the logs is a technical thing one can learn. Having clue and a fine touch is not something that can be taught. As Jenna says - it's a 5 minute process to pick it up so it's really not a deal breaker. Pedro :  Chat  13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a candidate doesn't know about a lot of things, I'd be concerned because their learning curve might get too disruptive. Not being familiar with one fairly important thing (like the logs) isn't that big a deal in my mind. The fact of the matter is, picking these things up on the fly isn't that hard, as long as you're careful and go slow at first. Some evidence of a history of not getting in over his head would completely erase any concern I might have about unfamiliarity of some processes; evidence of galloping full speed ahead into unfamiliar territory would make it much more worrying. --barneca (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logs what are those? Actually, I think I was an admin for several months before I realized what they were ;-) It's definitely not a deal breaker for me.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I eschewed the logs. The deletion logs are important; I can get at them via the page history. The block logs I can get through via user contribs. Balloonman said it best. Dlohcierekim 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, logs aren't precisely the most mind-boggling of utilities to get to grips with. I'm sure Ironholds will cope fine with them. I think William made a wise move, however, in sharing his concerns regarding logs and such with the rest of this discussion's participants; concerns are best out in the open, rather than shut away, in my opinion. Anthøny ✉ 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from WilliamH: followup:

Concur with Pedro. My concern lied not with the tool itself (and learning it, which indeed is quite facile), but the odd timeline of experience, which really caused my confidence to falter. If I consider these things, that Ironholds:

  • a) is clearly advantageous to the project
  • b) has
i) clue and will willingly
ii) ask others to use their clue stick too if he thinks it offers benefit.
  • c) at no point during our beer/pub lunch, contemplated blocking Jimbo or attempted to shave the word HAGGER?? into the back of my head.

...then I retract the sentiment of my previous statement and know of no other matter which I may feel the community should be aware of, as after all, that was what my interest was ultimately vested in, and always will be. Best of luck. WilliamH (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). You appreciate I may at some point in the future shave a small triptych portraying the rise of four-part crop rotation in Western Europe into the back of your head? Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and only labeling it as that because I'll be reverted if I don't, which is silly on the face of it) 36 questions for an administrator candidate? This candidate thinks it's a good idea? The RfA pass rate is dropping faster than the stock market and this, this is to be the cure???? I don't need four days to draw my own conclusions. This is insanity. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity? This is Wikipedia! In all seriousness, though, this is for discussing the candidate; complaints about the process should go on the talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm-- if you read the top, you saw this an experimental RFA? If you read the talk page discussions, you'll see that the length of time for "questions and discussion" is under discussion there. I think one of the conclusions that will come out of reviewing the process after this is complete is that 4 day is to long. At any rate, please review and join the discussion on the talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in discussing the format. The format is a joke. That's plain to see. I am discussing the candidate in that thinking this is the right direction to go, even for an experiment, is astonishing. I can't imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea. If the candidate had the best interests of the project at heart, he'd close down this abomination. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sold on the format for a number of reasons... but I think the candidate should be commended for being brave (stupid) enough to be the first person in a long time to bring a viable alternative to the RfA process. Everybody agrees that RfA is broken, I'm not convinced that this is the right fix, but I will not hold the candidate to blame for trying something different... our community is too uptight as it is, which is why nothing ever happens... let's not punish somebody for testing the waters (even if you think the idea is ill conceived.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do commend him for trying. I don't commend him for letting this process continue when it is so obviously a horrible solution. It's a train wreck. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then Hammersoft. <<grin>> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree all the way around. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First up, this RfA is an experiment. Experiments usually involve some form of trial and error. If you don't try something new, you will never know if it works or not. To discount something out of hand or to wilfully resist change with nothing more than destructive criticism does no benefit to yourself, the candidate the process or the project. The fact that you're not even prepared to discuss the topic is regrettable in my opinion. Then again, from the way you rigorously archive your own talk page perhaps a willingness to discuss may have been misguided optimism on my part. Even so, the situation we find ourselves in with the RfA process (plummeting succesess and nomination rates) is a situation we as a community should try to resolve, lest we reach the situation in the future where our active admin pool starts to shrink. This scenario may in fact already be happening. Gazimoff 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to discuss it because it is obvious it failed. I don't mind experiments. But continuing the experiment so long after it evidently failed is absurd. I DID give criticism, and it wasn't destructive. This experiment resulted in 36 (and counting!) questions. That's 10 times the number of default questions. It blatantly failed. I can archive my talk page however I like, thank you very much. The way I do it has nothing to do with this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what your fail criteria are. When we looked at proposing a new mechanism for RfA, we specifically did not list among the requirements a desire to either reduce or cap the number of questions that a candidate would face. The key aim was to ensure the candidate would be reviewed fairly and thoroughly, and not gain or duffer from early or pile-on supports or opposes. It was also a requirement to reduce the level of badgering that support or oppose statement would receive by encouraging discussion of the candidate's merits and issues before !voting commences. Neither of the requirements can be judged to have failed as yet, and cannot be scored until the RfA completes. If you feel that there should be a cap on questioning, perhaps you should detail it as a requirement when the post mortem is held in order to ensure that any further experimental RfAs can be designed with this requirement in mind. Many thanks, Gazimoff 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but..
edit

Putting it here rather than the talkpage so I can guarantee people'll see it. I'm AFK for the rest of the day, hence me planning it to open at 7PM-odd (although Ecoleetage seems to have been WP:BOLD and done it already). I'm deeply sorry; I would've waited if I was aware this'd happen. Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
edit
  1. Strong Support As nominator. Ironholds is an asset to Wikipedia at every possible level. No "wrong queue" jokes here -- I am completely serious in backing him and I'm in the right queue! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support an excellent editor. The fact that he donated his RfA to test this experimental format only makes me support him more not less, I don't see how it shows bad judgment, as RMHED has suggested. Icewedge (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (EC) Strong support - I think the candidate has learned from previous RFAs and adjusted contributions accordingly. In that he avoids the cesspool of drama-mongering that is AN/I, he earns bonus points. We don't all need to be there, srsly. I'm pleased with his answers to the questions, even impressed by some. I think it's admirable that he volunteered himself to test this format, and any opposes for it should surely be discounted as pointy and shameful bs. (Anyone who feels inclined to ask me to strike that, save it, because it won't happen.) His heart is in the right place and, as always, I ask myself Can I trust this candidate not to abuse the tools or the position?, and my answer is a resounding "Yes." Jennavecia (Talk) 01:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support As someone who opposed his previous RfA (and saw my comment in one of the questions, actually), I think that the candidate has learned well since his previous RfAs. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely Protonk (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - he could benefit from the extra tools.   jj137 (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Nonwithstanding my great annoyance with the format of this RfA, Ironholds is an experienced and dedicated editor who will be an asset as an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Absolute ultra super-duper Support with sprinkles on top! This user will be a credit to the admin group/right/community/whatever, there are many reasons why a user would have many RfAs, the cynical and assume bad faith side could say that its because Ironholds is power hungry, but I believe quite the contrary, this user is determined to help the Wikipedia community to the best of his/her ability. It's good to see that you are also experimenting with the RfA format, shows that you are open to change; A Good Thing. Good on you Ironholds! And keep up the good work! It might also be worth mentioning that Ironholds meets my RfA criteria as well :-) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I have see several bitey comments of yours in RFAs, which is not exactly adminlike behavior. However, it must be recognised that we are all human, and people must look through the trees to see the clearing (or something tlike that) I recently miserably failed snowed my RFA basically due to one opposition that your nomintor agreed with (eco rocks my socks). I could have toned down my statement a bit, as I assume you would have had you the oppurtunity to turn back time. Your work with DYK is impressive, which clearly shows a dedication to building the project. Oh and all that admin stuff yada yada. You are qualified, Ironholds, to be on The Administrator Cabal! :) ~one of many editorofthewikis (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--Theoneintraining (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to "Neutral[reply]
  12. Support He might have been a little mean in RfAs, but he has enough experience with policy and he seems reasonable. I like his ideas about improving the reliability of Wikipedia articles. Wronkiew (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong SupportSee no reason to believe will abuse the tools. Iwas impressed with his CSD experience. Has grown remarkably since last RfA. Per Icewedge and Jennavecia as well. Dlohcierekim 04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - User demonstrates the qualities of WP:BOLD admirably, even in the face of quite appaling opposition. Opposing the process rather than the candidate? In terms of barrell-scraping, I think we just hit a new low. Gazimoff 07:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support Ironholds is an experienced editor who could really use the tools, and has created 273 articles?!?!!!??!?! That's a lot - I've only got 114. But I read Acalamari's oppose, and it seemed a little bitey. Special K(KoЯn flakes 08:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The oppose or the context? Caulde 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Ironholds is an asset to Wikipedia and I don't think he will abuse the tools. Acalamari has raised some concerns, but adminship is not a big deal. AdjustShift (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Ironholds is one of the best people for the job. Also, I note that most of the opposes are pileons or people saying they hate the formula which was actually the thing we were trying to prevent. PXK T /C 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Epic support — This user put himself in the firing line for four entire days without a flaw. The only valid oppose I see is by Acalamari but I am not swayed by it. RHMED's oppose is entirely inappropriate and quite frankly, rude. I wholeheartedly support this candidate and I think you'll make a great admin. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support, per DHMED and Giggy's opposes. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I think Ironholds will be a good admin, and I hope he joins the DYK-updating crew. I support the experiment as well: inviting discussion on the RfA talk page two or three days before the RfA !voting phase opens is an intriguing idea and worthy of further testing. — Athaenara ✉ 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Not my perfect candidate, but per nom and per above, positive qualities definitely outweigh negatives. Many of opposes are reasonable, even though I disagree; the others based mainly on the format are depressing. And Ironholds, thank you for sticking your neck out and giving this a try. --barneca (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Acalamari's diffs. RMHED (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain this more? Aren't Acalarmari's reasons more for oppose? I could have misunderstood your reasoning though.--Banime (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming good faith here, but it could appear that you are supporting the candidate because of rather uncivil RfA opposes. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Anyone who had to answer as many questions as he did deserves my support. Jock Boy 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Moving to Oppose per some very uncivil actions at others Rfas. Jock Boy 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Why not? - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Notable improvement since his last RfA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support – per CSD tagging (which is frankly, outstanding) and the shared sentiments in barneca's support above. Not my perfect candidate, but good enough for support. Caulde 14:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. After an intense interrogatory that failed to find any substantive faults in the candidate, the opposes are based on the candidate being outspoken and making use of colorful language and sarcasm at times. These actions are labeled as uncivil by the opposition. This seems to be the new standard of wiki-political correctness, which I must oppose. Outspoken and blunt ≠ uncivil. My experiences with the candidate have been positive. VG ☎ 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Supportanyone who answers 43 questions deserves support and anyone who reads all the answers deserves a medal! Not a good process but despite all of this the candidate will not make a bad admin in my opinion even if some find him a bit short tempered or rude.Mjchesnel (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Ironholds and I have an almost opposite pattern of voting behaviour at RFA, so I was perturbed at some of the allegations of him being bitey and the frequency of him voting oppose. However almost all of his opposes were to unsuccessful RFAs, which I take as a sign of his good judgement. I read his comments as blunt but focussed on the edits not the editor. I have seen some very uncivil votes at RFAs, but I do not consider Ironholds as uncivil. ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Irrespective of the process employed in this RfA, the ultimate question remains: do I trust this editor with the Sysop bit? Yes I do, therefore Support. Nothing else matters. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
Oppose You thought this experimental RfA was a good idea, what terrible judgement you have. RMHED (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to temper your comment abit. That was a little too strong. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This is, despite the experimental nature, a serious RfA; I'd appreciate if people vote based on the user, not the process." What a giant middle finger to Ironholds, dude. Jeepers creepers, folks, cut the poor bastard some slack. Is your dissaproval of this RfA method so important to you that you have to thoughtlessly oppose an RfA to get it out there?--KojiDude (C) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, I congratulate Ironholds for being bold to test a new RfA format, but I have some reasons to oppose this request. To begin with, I came across this oppose which, in my opinion, was incredibly biting, as were these two. This oppose, like a couple of the ones I mentioned above, was unnecessarily uncivil. I also came across a few other opposes that came across as aggressive in tone and/or lack the assumptions of good faith on behalf of the said candidates: [1][2][3] I'm also not happy with an event surrounding Ironholds' last RfA: two weeks prior to it, he tells another editor to wait to be nominated, and that is what he (Ironholds) was planning to do, yet he goes against his own advice and self-nominates: I do not consider that to be good judgment. On top of my other concerns, I have two more: I came across this, an inappropriate hidden comment on his user page, and is still on his user page as of the most recent edit (note that the most recent edit may change during the course of this RfA). Lastly, note in the first part of how I congratulate Ironholds for running in an experimental RfA? Well, I still do congratulate him, but I noticed part of his reasons for opposing two other candidates, Ali'i and Mr. IP: in Ali'i, he mentioned, "In addition, applying to prove a point makes a mockery of the process. Yes, admins are technically no more important than users, but RfA in a way shows the quality and quantity of your contributions to Wikipedia; debasing that to prove a point is almost disruptive.": the RfA for Ali'i was somewhat of an experimental one, and Ironholds partially opposed her on that basis. As for Mr. IP, I found that more worrying; Ironholds' entire rationale was: "Oppose. This RfA does nothing but disrupt the process and create DRAMAH. If you want to test the RfA policy then you can contribute to the discussions about overhauling it, not waste peoples time here. By posting this RfA as a "test" you've proven yourself an inappropriate admin candidate." That oppose was uncivil, which was bad enough, and now that Ironholds himself is running in a "test" RfA, after accusing two other people of “disruption” and/or “DRAMAH” for doing the same/similiar thing, and he has not followed his own words. Suffice to say, I am not comfortable with Ironholds' judgment for the time being. Acalamari 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I think this is the exact kind of oppose that this experiment was trying to prevent with this RfA. You should ideally have brought it up in the discussion section so he could talk about the diffs rather than have them used during the Oppose section and then have 3 pileons right beneath (and likely more). No offense intended. --Izno (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no problem with him talking about them now. Acalamari rarely opposes people; I'm sure he'll be happy to discuss with Ironholds, as would I. -- how do you turn this on 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)You know, that this is just another proof that this format doesn't work as intended. A person is A) not obligated to pose questions during the "question" phase and B) you can't assume that a person who posts a strong oppose with a valid reason did so with malicious intent. I for example, haven't reviewed this candidate in detail yet... despite it being announced for what 4 days? Are you saying that if in my vetting this candidate that I find strong reason to oppose, that I can't do so because I didn't ask questions during the "Q&A?"---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) With him being the keywords. Another issue brought up in regard to this was drivebys (I somehow doubt most of those present currently are usual drivebys), and that consensus becomes much more difficult to judge when people don't return to talk about what the candidate in question has replied with in regard to the oppose. I am in fact very certain that neither of you will have issues with discussing in line as is normal at RfA, but am not so sure of the populace at large.
    Not that it doesn't work as intended, just that it doesn't work at the moment. Tweaks are usually necessary, and hence why this is considered experimental. And no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that such a strong oppose (because that is what it is) should have probably come during the discussion, and not as one of the first opposes on the list, in effect 'poisoning the well'. It's not an assumption of bad or good faith (in my case), just one of "why didn't that come up earlier?", as I'm sure he has been watching this thread for the four days it has been open. --Izno (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a strong oppose. -- how do you turn this on 03:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantically (rather than by the WP definition), it is, by the strength of the argument provided by the diffs, and by the fact that it had three other opposes attached to it. For all that he didn't say "strong oppose", nor did he mean it, that is what evidence means to me: there is strength behind the oppose. --Izno (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, this RFA, with it's long question/comment/debate phase, was deliberately intended to remove the need for opposes of this sort, as they attract more "per X" opposes before the candidate even gets a chance to respond. While I'm dissapointed that it happened, I'm not exactly surprised. Gazimoff 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I dunno. I think that having a "pause" before "voting" has helped. That said, perhaps the ratio should be 3 days of discussion, followed by 4 days of "voting", while still allowing discussion to continue. (I seem to recall this was discussed previously.) - jc37 08:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Acalamari has made a comment about this on the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not going to be able to eliminate this type of !vote. You will have A) people who don't visit the page during the Q&A B) people who don't believe they need to ask questions and have enough info already to make a vote, and sad to say, C) people who will deliberately wait til the !vote to kill an RfA of a person they don't support. (To be frank, There are people who regardless of what they might say in an RfA that I would oppose. I won't waste my time asking them questions.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to Acalamari's response on the talk page. Feel free to drop in if you have further comment. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I challenge you to find diff's showing Ironholds using the same "bity" or blunt manner outside of RfA. (Outside of RfA is, after all, where 99.9999% of admin actions take place)--KojiDude (C) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at some of the comments I cited below. There were also some cases where he told people not to make changes unless they had been fully discussed first on the talk pages---which goes against BOLD. Yes, on controversial pages it is often best to discuss first, but newbies might not know this... and you don't always have to discuss first.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. One thing that I've noticed about Ironholds is that he frequently makes rude, bitey, empty or unecessary opposes. I was going to dig through his contribs and provide some links, but hey, Acalamari did all that work for me. naerii 02:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Agree with concerns raised by Acalamari (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per Acalamari, I'm sorry. You're a great editor (I love Court of Common Pleas (England), hope to support it at FAC one day), but too many unnecessarily harsh comments at RFAs. -- how do you turn this on 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per RHMED. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose While I have high respect for the user, I must go along with the comments above. America69 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I'm afraid I must oppose per Acalamari as well. The candidate's contributions in the mainspace are definitely of a high quality, I don't think anyone could dispute that. But some of the rather flippant and bitey comments shown just go too far, in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Oppose. Per Acalamari. Those types of comment show disregard for the civility standards we ask of all editors, let alone admins. These diffs show lack of understanding of adminship. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I would like to personally commend the candidate for trying this new form of RfA. Please understand that I encourage these types of experiments. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 21:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per RHMED (yes, my opinions on the format do carry over here... and yes, you're welcome to express your disagreement with my doing so) and Acalamari (incivility = meh, but criticising an experimental RfA and then running one yourself isn't impressive). Giggy (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Aqwis' support. Giggy (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Aren't I funny?[reply]
  10. Oppose This comment on his userpage, that was mentioned by Acalamari above, is absolutely and entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. Indeed it's simply not better than vandalism. —αἰτίας •discussion• 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Like America69 said, I have high respect you, but some of the points brought up by Acalamari are concerning. iMatthew (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tentative oppose - I'm sorry, but I agree with Acalamari. I have lots of respect for what you have done and continue to do, but I can't truly support when points as concerning as have been brought up are at hand. — neuro(talk) 12:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Acalamari brought up very concerning points. Candidates seems incivil and lacks good judgment, and though I don't want to sound rude, seems hypocritical. The hidden comment on his userpage doesn't help either. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose All of Acalamari's points, especially announcing his plans for getting someone to nominate him for admin, and opposing people who try experimental RfA processes when he did the same thing. --Banime (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    there is a huge difference between this and mr ip's experimental rfa. mr ip's appeared to be a case of making a point/disruption (I know that he meant for it to be serious, but it wasn't received as such.) this is experimental as a means towards improving the process.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Sorry. I was set for support based on your impressive answer to my question in the "pre-voting" phase. Reading the opposition and support I was still fairly convinced - until I saw the diff provided by User:Aitias [4] . Okay, it's over three months ago, but the attitude portrayed there really is not what I'd like. You get far more abuse as an admin, and if you're then tooled up with the block button I think you're likely to cause more harm than help when dealing with it. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Oh dear. A bit hypocritical? Tiptoety talk 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Just like you? Majorly talk 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I think Jennevecia said it best, One of the biggest problems with RfA's are the Chronic opposers and the sheep that pile-on per them. There are some bitter people on this project who have been on the receiving end of some RFA abuse and now they're hell bent on bringing down anyone they can. It's obvious in looking over the RFAs from recent months, and it's terribly unfortunate. It seems to be a "if I can't have admin, no one can" sort of mentality. Ironholds has opposed over 75% of the RfA's he's voted on... only supporting around the time he runs for admin... in addition to his overwhelming oppose rate, his opposes are bity, and his comments elsewhere can be kurt as well.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    moving discussion RE who opposes more than Kurt to talk page
  18. Oppose Failed to answer questions 43 through 47 within six minutes of their being posed. More seriously...it is in part the candidate's willingness to make available to the community, by way of answering our many questions and by participating in a form of RfA that theoretically lends itself to a thorough examination of the candidate and then to a broad explication of the merits of his candidacy, whatever information it should desire toward the adjudging of his fitness for adminship, that makes this oppose a regretful one. There is, in fact, I think, much to recommend the candidate for adminship, and I do not doubt that he is largely well acquainted with policy and that he knows whereof he does not know, such that he should be (exceedingly?) unlikely to abuse or misuse avolitionally the tools because of an unfamiliarity with policy and practice. It is the candidate's temperament and demeanor, which are, it must be said, most commonly unproblematic, though, that, per a few of the others, give me pause, and in the end, in view of that and, less significantly (I would have opposed in any case; my !vote might simply have been "weak"), of the candidate's apparent regard for BLP (admins act ministerially, to determine for what actions a consensus exists and then to take those actions, but we have a few admins who interpret their role vis-à-vis BLPs more broadly, and although actions that do not command the support of the community are oftener than not addressed and reversed, we would probably do well not, absent compelling reason, to add to the BLP-hardliner admin corps, who are, one may say with hope, otherwise on the wane [I do not propose precisely that Ironholds is a BLP absolutist, and on the disposition of that issue my opinion does not turn; I mean only that I get a bad feeling whenever a candidate speaks so reverently of BLP, or of a sense of BLP that may be inconsistent with good practice]), I am unable to conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect for both Joe and the rationale, this oppose reads like a Jane Austen novel. Could someone please point out the main reason of opposition? —kurykh 10:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Selective quoting; It is the candidate's temperament and demeanor ... which ... give me pause ... and ... less significantly ... the candidate's apparent regard for BLP (... we would probably do well not, absent compelling reason, to add to the BLP-hardliner admin corps ... [ ... I mean only that I get a bad feeling whenever a candidate speaks so reverently of BLP, or of a sense of BLP that may be inconsistent with good practice] ... ) .... Giggy (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Though I agree; he should be strongly opposed because he failed to answer questions 43 through 47 within six minutes of their being posed.[reply]
  19. Oppose. Even more than the arse-blocking issue, I'm troubled by the "ask me first" comment, which shows a basic misunderstanding of GFDL copyright and wiki principles. I'm also nervous about giving the Delete button to someone who, at least until four months ago was a self-declared deletionist. In his answer to Q5 Ironholds admits English isn't his strongest suit, but I find his use of Greengrocers' apostrophes and random capitalization simply embarrassing. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see question 29 in relation to me being a "deletionist". Would you mind pointing out any grammatical errors or "random capitalisation" for me to improve on in future, regardless of RfA's?
  20. Oppose ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: I agree with the sentiments expressed by Acalamari. That said, this is neither a pile-on, nor is it a cheap shot oppose as I asked a question along such lines during the Q&A process. In fact, the reason I asked Q12 was that I think Ironholds represents a lot of what's wrong with RfA to begin with. I'm all for trying new things with RfA, and I think we've done that here. The experiment is not counted as successful only if the candidate passes, and we'll have good data regardless of the end result. I rarely oppose these days because I think the project needs more dedicated users with the mop. However, I see an editor who upon failing consistently to earn the community's trust to wield the mop has devised an alternative system in which he presents himself through rose tinted glasses, and tries to limit opposition by indicating that all opposition should be dealt with in the Q&A period. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose. The weak is because you had to go through the pain and bothering of answering over 40 questions. That's commendable in and of itself, so I can't full oppose. Now, I didn't read the questions (i don't base my decisions on those, but on contributions themselves), but I did read Acalamari's diffs, and they are very troubling, too much for my tastes. Could certainly be a great admin in the future with some self-assessment though. Wizardman 15:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I agree with Acalamari, and would have had most of the same comments had I gotten here before him to comment. I also very much agree with Balloonman. I had noticed his oppose tendencies in the past, and this attempt at an experimental Rfa smacked of an attempt to slide in the back door. -Djsasso (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And that just smacks of bad faith. He was chosen as a candidate whom had previously run and who was available, so to speak. I very much doubt he was trying to make his way in the back door. I've already commented on Acalamari's oppose, as above. --Izno (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I discussed this on the talk page prior to him running for RfA, it was evident these kind of opposes would come up with people assuming bad faith that Ironholds is using a controversial, experimental RfA to get his foot in the door a little further. I don't believe that's true at all; instead, I see a candidate who wants to improve the project and who was willing to take productive steps in doing so by throwing himself in the firing line of all of us. 47 questions? Wow. You can assume that his voting habits have changed to increase the support votes in his RfA or you can assume the other way like I am, but truth is no one but himself know his intentions. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose; don't trust him to be able to civil once he's passed his RFA. fish&karate 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
  1. Neutral - waiting on responses to questions. - jc37 01:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't mean this to be rude at all, but that is honestly the last kind of neutral vote I would expect in this RfA. :) Protonk (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's only answered 43 questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I only count 42. And since one of mine is the 43rd... - jc37 11:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Acalamari. (I may take a switch as constructive consensus builds up and more responses are seen.) Otherwise, candidate, I congratulate you for taking such a bold and innovative twist at the RFA front. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I did support until I read Acalamari's oppose I have decided change to neutral. If you want my support you need a good explianation. Because I really do not give a fuck either way.--Theoneintraining (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I want to support by Acalamari has brought up some concerning difs. I've also seen other comments that bother me as well. For example calling a user a a hack or a number of comments he made to StewieGriffin such as "Grow up" or There's no need to act like a baby and leave me a standardised warning message to show off or if you're so interested in "building the project" then stop interfering like a five year old. He's made other comments to troublesome newbies, such as "Leave" or other somewhat bitie comments. How about this edit summary "I'm not going to say Jesus Christ, but" followed by this comment If you honestly believe that then you're entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Somebody who believes that everyone other than a select few is going to burn in hell has no place on an encyclopedia that runs regardless of creed or colour. There are others, but you get the point. Normally, these difs would be enough to get me to oppose, but in all honesty, while these comments are bity, I have to admit that none of them should be isolated out of context. In each case, it could be argued that Ironholds showed restraint before succumbing to this level. Perhaps this format has given me a chance to see the thoughtful manner in which Ironholds answered some challenging questions. I'll have to think about this some more. Part of me want to support, another part wants to oppose.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)NOTE: Can't support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Changing vote---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I came to support and I think you are a great candidate but those diffs presented by Acalamari show a side that may scare many newbies when an admin acts like that. I like the new format though and I congratulate you on trying such a bold move. Note: I will happily reconsider my vote if I am convinced that the civility problems pointed out above will no longer happen, because other than that, you are a great candidate. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Can't support based on the concerns expressed in this section and oppose section; but I'm not sure I can oppose at this point either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I was planning on supporting when I came here. However, after reading the comments in the Oppose section, I simply can't do that. For example, this would be unacceptable behavior of an administrator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Almost exactly the same views as JulianColton.--LAAFansign review 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral (Leaning Support). I generally find people who have serious oppose votes to not be taken lightly, but if you consider the overall quality of this editor's work, I'm sure giving him the mop should be a net positive to the community. (And that user page diff is kind of funny, not necessarily a comment to be cause for concern since immediately following he had this page repeatedly vandalized. My question is why did HarryPotter fix the typos?!) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - I would like to point out that not one, not two, but indeed the first seven diffs provided by Acalamari were opposes in RfAs that did not succeed for various reasons. They may seem are a little bitey, but I can make a case that a strong, swift response early in the process is better for the candidates and for the process itself. It's a weak case, but let's face it - we've all seen RfAs that go on way too long. Now, maybe Ironholds doesn't need to be the pit bull first responder every time, but it is, after all, a job that needs doing to some degree. I'm willing to be convinced that the diffs given by Acalamari above are isolated. I am going to try to find evidence that these are not the norm so I can be pushed into the support column for this productive editor; if you have this evidence, show me the diffs!  Frank  |  talk  18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Juliancolton. CL — 15:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I admire this candidate for putting themselves up for 47 or more questions, and this candidate does valuable work on the project but the diffs presented give me considerable pause. However, not sufficiently so to actually oppose. There might be a few "lessons learned" from this RfA as to whether the new process needs (some / a hell of a lot of) tweaking. Orderinchaos 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_2&oldid=1208498908"