Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3

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

Ironholds

Nomination

Final: (102/55/13); ended 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds (talk · contribs) – Ironholds has been an editor on Wikipedia for a year now — first edit April 2, 2008 — and during that time has shown a high level of competence and understanding, and in my opinion would be a fantastic administrator. He has a total of nearly 24,000 edits, 19,000 of those undeleted, and has maintained a high level of activity since he created his account (minimum 804 edits in Sept 2008, maximum 2385 in June 2008).

A university student studying law in real life, Ironholds has created a substantial number of articles on a variety of topics, and written 11 featured lists as well as two good articles. Furthermore, he has contributed 45 articles to Wikipedia which have further been featured on the Main Page as Did You Know? entries, demonstrating his experience with this area of the Main Page which could benefit heavily from another capable, active administrator. His comments on the DYK nominations of others have showed a high degree of understanding as to what consensus currently supports and opposes being featured in this frequently-changing section of the Main Page.

On the maintenance side of Wikipedia, Ironholds has had rollback rights for nine months, which he uses to help with recent changes monitoring, and to date has had no complaints with regard to his use of the tool. He has shown good judgement and skill in his efforts to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism in between contributing high-quality content, and has made over 220 edits to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and nearly 100 to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

However, the thing that has most impressed me personally about Ironholds in the last year is how he brings calm, well-measured and thought-provoking contributions to heated discussions, ultimately improving the situation. Administrators who are both active and can use their judgement and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and-arguably more importantly-the principles behind them, to resolve issues and judge consensus, are those to be cherished. Ironholds has showed he has the ability to do this, both with his contributions to articles for deletion and also the administrator noticeboards.

Further, Ironholds has shown consistently-good judgement in his contributions to the deletion process, both with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as well as speedy deletions. A new-page reviewer with nearly 5,000 deleted edits (many attributable to accurate speedy deletion nominations), his assistance with clearing candidates for speedy deletion as well as closing articles for deletion nominations in the same thoughtful and considerate manner that he contributes to them would be of great benefit to the community and to the encyclopedia.

I hope that the community agrees with the above, and supports this request, as Ironholds would truly be a fantastic administrator. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: New Page Patrol is an area I currently work in, and through it I do a lot of CSD work and some prod and AfD for pages that aren't valid speedy candidates but nevertheless deserve to go. I don't think getting the tools will change my wiki-world-view, and so I'll probably do a large chunk of my admin work in those areas. I'll also hang around WP:ANI picking up on the less dramah-ridden requests; I tend not to spend much time around there at the moment in case something sticks to me. I'd also be interested in working at DYK; I send a lot of my articles there, and I have noticed rather substantial delays in changing the listings around on the main page (although they have improved recently).

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

A: Ohh, where to start! There was the Nobel Peace Prize, the Gabor Medal, the- oh, Wikipedia work? I guess my ten bits of Featured content would be the most obvious "big" things I've done, but I'm not very proud of most of them; they are all lists, and don't take that long to write. That being said this one almost killed me. The work I'm most proud of is probably the stuff relating to Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett; it went from this to this, which I thought was fantastic (although I'm sure there are editors who can do that without batting an eyelid). It is a Good Article, and has spent the last two weeks or so at FAC getting shinied up. I'm also doing a little project with User:Neurolysis (although little is a massive, massive understatement) to get all the Awards, Prize Lectures and Medals of the Royal Society of London up to Featured-class and turn it into a Featured Topic. We're about a quarter of the way through so far, with nine medals done.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can't really think of anything in the last.. well, lots really. The first thing my mind jumps to is "conflicts with established users"; I'm not the sort to start or seek those, and as a result haven't encountered anything major. If we're talking conflicts with new users, vandals and the like then they are again a rare thing, but a disagreement with User:The Real American comes to mind. He had created some pages about his own, unrecognised country (not even a microstate, essentially something that only existed in his own head) which I prodded and then eventually sent to AfD. He was understandably rather upset about this, something he showed in his own rather singular style I did try and help out (although I did get a bit sardonic at one point). As expected the pages were deleted (all the policy knowledge in the world wouldn't have prevented that) and he was blocked for a month due to vandalism and harassment. It later transpired he was socking to repost the articles, and his block was extended.

I'd like to think I prefer calming people down to escalating conflicts; here I tried to act as the voice of reason, asking people to stop turning the RfA into a debate over "does god exist, and if so does he exist on wikipedia". I'd like to think I was successful, but I'm not sure (would it be inappropriate to say "god knows"? Yes? You sure? Well, all right then). In future conflicts I'd probably follow the same sort of theme; calm people down, switch the discussion back to the issue at hand if it has drifted and try to prevent the disagreement infecting the surrounding area and derailing the rest of the discussion. Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Wehwalt

4 What's changed since the last RfA? How have you addressed the concerns expressed then?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A. I'd like to think I have cleared up the hypocricy and incivility issues which dogged my last RfA, although Scarian's oppose (however out of context some diffs may be) might change your mind on that front. The only other issue was the experimental RfA format, which I still maintain could work in theory (a bit like communism: wonderful until human nature gets taken into account). Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from roux  

5. I'm going to be asking this of all RFA candidates now. I personally feel that openness to recall is essential in admin; what the community giveth the community must also be able to taketh away. In my opinion, MBisanz has the most robust, streamlined, and intelligent criteria I have seen, and we have seen it work precisely as intended. What do you think of recall in general, MBisanz' version in particular, and should your RFA pass will you hold yourself to the same standard as MBisanz?

Recall is a good thing, in my opinion, when it is applied. Just like under-age users, a few bad apples taint the entire recall system despite the presence of a mass of people who would follow their own recall process without a second thought if the required standards were met. I like MBisanz's process, although I think the "five admins" threshold is a bit too high (although a counter to that argument would be that if it is something involving abuse of powers it will be obvious enough that other admins can see where the complainer is coming from). I'd hold myself to recall should this pass, yes, and I'd probably use MBisanz's process as a draft for working out mine. To stymie the inevitable "I won't support a candidate who is open to recall because it doesn't work"; if I pass and make my recall criteria I will place a public notice of the page somewhere, probably the 'crat noticeboard. I request that the clerks and any 'crats who decide to watchlist it keep a close eye on the page. If I either delete the page or later change my mind about following the process I request that said clerk/'crat immediately ask a steward to desysop me, using this diff as evidence that I would support such a thing. I'd hate to think I'd be enough of an arsehole not to follow my own process, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm some kind of flawless Übermensch. Drafting such a process would be my first task if this RfA passes. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Malleus Fatuorum

6 Other RfA candidates have promised to be open to recall, but have not done so once promoted. Why should anyone believe that you wouldn't do the same?

I'll expand my earlier statement then; this also gives me an opportunity to clarify, since I think I was kind of rambling in Q5. I request that if I 1) refuse to set up a recall process if this RfA passes or 2) set up a recall process and then go back on it, a user (most likely another admin or a 'crat, since they're likely to be taken seriously) dash off to the nearest steward and get me desysopped, using this diff as evidence. To confirm: should I fail to go through with my RfA promises, I support my own -sysop. Again, I'd like to think I'm not enough of an arsehole to do something like that. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But you and I both know that's not how things work. Everything said here is forgotten once an RfA passes, as many arseholes have clearly demonstrated. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you'd be joining that infamous crew, I'm just asking why anyone should believe that you wouldn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I appreciate that isn't what you're saying. Truth be told unless a 'crat/steward is willing to take this sort of promise (recall or -sysop) at face value and ignore any pleadings that "I've changed my mind" there isn't really a way to directly enforce it. The problem is it is rather reliant on me not turning into one of said arseholes, and while I'd like to think I can keep the level of arseholery to a minimum I'm not going to pretend I'm some kind of God-Emperor. I can say with 99% certainty that I won't turn into an arsehole, but that is all; I can't promise anything absolute. Sorry I can't really come up with a yes or no. Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from George the Dragon

7 Would you support the permanent semi-protection of all BLPs? If so, why, if not, why?

ANot really. I think most bits of BLP vandalism get reverted bloody quickly anyway (excuse my French); people bring the Teddy Kennedy thing up as an example of "why BLPs should be protected" but to be honest if that is the only example of misinformation you can find in our thousands upon thousands of BLPs I'd like to think we are doing a pretty good job. Most of the time I do not support moving us away from "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" in such a drastic way unless not doing so would compromise Wikipedia, which open BLPs would not. That being said I do support the Flagged Revisions trial for BLPs because I feel it strikes a better balance between open-editing and reliability than simply blocking IP edits all together. In actual fact having each edit checked would probably do more for Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source for living people than making users create an account and perform a whole ten edits before their changes are allowed. Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Carlossuarez46

8. Do you think that being open to recall will make you less likely to try to solve problems involving large numbers of editors and/or admins sufficient to recall you?

A: No. My recall process will require the affirmation of three administrators before it can go ahead. If I refused to act in areas with three admins present exactly what work would that leave me? My answer to Q.1 would be essentially moot, since at least three administratos are present in all of those areas. Any recall request in any area, if reasonable, is likely to be affirmed by three administrators; there are 1,600 of them, finding three is not a difficult task. I take the old "if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear" line. As such I see no problem with wading into such areas; if my actions are appropriate, then however many involved administrators tick the "recall" box the reconfirmation RfA will clear me. If they are inappropriate the reconfirmation RfA will and should damn me. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from NuclearWarfare

9. I just had a conversation with steward Pathoschild. When I asked if your previous statement about enforceability of your insta-desysop if you choose to back out of your recall process, he responded, "It's hard to say. We desysop based on their current request, not previous requests. If they delete the recall page, that rather negates their earlier promise. You could get ArbCom to enforce it, though, since we also desysop by ArbCom request." Stewards are generally bound more by policy and are generally not allowed to exercise judgment over local projects. So, in line with Pathoschild's request for getting ArbCom involved: If there is ever a time where you delete your recall page or attempt to back out of your recall process, would you agree to and encourage at this time for future times, a motion to speedily desysop you under a cloud to be raised and encouraged to be passed at Requests for Arbitration? An affirmative answer here would be unrevokable, same as your previous questions.

A.I would support that, although there are some problems with applying it; you are assuming that ArbCom would take the answer here to be binding on my future actions, which is precisely the issue which dogged my earlier efforts to set up a recall process. I would hope that ArbCom will treat this promise as binding. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from IMatthew

10. This coming from GlassCobra's oppose below, if you had succeeded in the experimental RfA, would you have accepted the tools, or not (since you say it didn't count as a past RfA)?

A.I've never said it wouldn't count as a past RfA. The "number of RfAs" problem I took issue with is that due to the way the "RfAs for this user" system works it also listed the post-mortem I ran of that experimental RfA. Rather than noticing that it wasn't an RfA some users decided to count that in their "sod off, user has X RfAs, obviously isn't suited" points. At no point have I said that the experimental RfA "didn't count". I would have accepted the tools, yes; at the end of the day there was nothing experimental about the !voting system or the way the 'crats would have calculated success/failure, so consensus reached through that method would be just as valid as consensus reached normally. The intent of the RfA was to prevent the regular problem where a user would present some diffs in oppose, twelve other users would pileon and then never look at the page again, failing to see the candidates response. The system would have ensured that such problems were brought up before !voting started, which in theory would allow the people commenting to be in full posession of the facts before they voted. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from JustGettingItRight (talk):

11. This is a "case study" question. I am a newly registered editor and I attempt to refute the theory of Evolution by editing the Evolution article. My sources come from Answers in Genesis, which I believe to be rock-solid sources on par with your secular "peer-reviewed" journals, which I personally view to have a closed shop bias. Immediately after I make my first edit, my edit is reverted in a very impersonal way. Not knowing the 3RR rule, I edit again in an attempt to insert what is factual information showing scientific dispute against evolution (this is what I believe anyways). After my fourth revert, I get a message from one editor on my talk page to quit disrupting Wikipedia by adding pseudoscientific information and I'm in violation of 3RR. I now perceive Wikipedia to be a bullying cabal of meanies and you get some sense of my frustration in my responses to complaints. You receive a complaint about my behavior, specifically I'm disrupting the Evolution page and I violated 3RR. How would you handle this situation? JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A. Well I certainly wouldn't ban you for 3RR, although after being reverted 3-4 times I would have thought most people would have said something to the other user. You weren't aware until the end that you were violating any kind of policy, so an exception should really be made (of course if you continued to add the information after the warning about 3RR that might be another matter). I'd do several things: firstly, I'd say "hi"; "welcome to wikipedia, now here is your automated vandal warning template" isn't really a good first impression. Secondly I'd give you a link to the 3RR policy and explain in a nutshell what it is (some policies such as 3RR require the reader to be aware of other policies and to know what certain phrases such as "edit war" mean, and a new user is unlikely to know that). Thirdly I'd request that in this situation and in future if your edits are reverted you should discuss them on the Talk page and find some common ground before reinserting them. Lastly I'd probably give you a link to WP:RS which will come in handy in the upcoming discussion since I don't think they are likely to think Answers in Genesis is a valid source (a Christian organisation which believes genesis should be taken literally is not going to be discussing evolution with the most neutral point of view) and invite you to give me a poke on my talk page if there are more finnicky issues in the future. Thanks for posting such a meaty question by the way; I like having something I can metaphorically sink my teeth into. I didn't answer it when I first scrolled down the page because I thought it was so large it could only be one of my answers to a previous question :). Ironholds (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/O Keyes
• Requests for adminship/O Keyes 2
• Requests for adminship/Ironholds
• Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2
• Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3
• Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4
• Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5

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

---

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

Discussion

• Ironholds, can you elaborate a bit on your semi-retirement alluded to below? Was it a case of wiki-burnout and or just personal real life responsibilities? I ask only because I want to ascertain if there is any latent drama. Thanks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Real life stuff, not burnout, although the personal stuff was wiki-related. Essentially I went to a wikimeet and found that almost everyone there was better-spoken than me, more intelligent than me, more qualified than me and so on. I decided I obviously needed to focus more on my university work, and left for a bit. I found however that 1) I kept making little tweaks as I browsed and 2) the issue isn't my university work (I normally get 1sts and 2:1s, not to brag) but probably where I am in life; game theorists and cambridge graduates trump a second-year politics student at a former polytechnic in the sticks. As such there wasn't really any reason to leave; any issues with work that needed to take priority could be solved with better time management. Ironholds (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ironholds, it's advisable not to respond to every oppose in your RfA. Believe me, I've been there, and it doesn't help. Just FYI. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Werd. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• That said, I think we should give the guy a pass on correcting people regarding the number of RfA's he's had. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a caucus on the general issue of "too many RFAs" might be helpful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made some remarks of possible interest to those interested in recall, and in particular in its "enforceability", on the talk page. — Dan | talk 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with NuclearWarfare's position (in his question above) that things said at RFA are enforceable by ArbCom. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be done about recall; ArbCom will probably be happy to support anything that gets broad consensus among the RFA community. More suggestions are welcome in Dan's thread on the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some opposes just to make a Point like he has many RFA and another oppose based on the fact he has stated he is open to recall and have to nothing to do with the candidate in particular hopefully the closing Crat will note these opposes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's do something about the recall issue, I'll ask around and open another thread at RFA with a summary of where we are. On the "too many RFAs" issue: if you're turned down by a school or a job, the turn-down letter will not list the 26 factors that went into the decision. They'll say the position was filled, or say something arbitrary, because they don't think it's worth their time to argue about it. I don't think we should be shocked that opposes sometimes feel the same way; if they don't want to argue it point by point, then that's how they feel. It's helpful if they're more specific, but it's not necessary. You'd have to be a crat to know for sure which votes crats are discounting, but we've got plenty of evidence at this point that crats don't discount opposes that don't give a detailed rationale. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a notice: I have a busy day today and was knackered last night, so my apologies for my failure to answer the questions above. I'll write up some responses when I've been run through the wrangler that is my Tuesday lecture schedule. Ironholds (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean by "Just like under-age users, a few bad apples", but may I add that blanket prejudice against certain groups of Wikipedia users is not going to adhere yourself to anybody. Esteffect (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  You seem to be completely missing the point. I never showed "blanket prejudice". There is a constant debate over whether or not young editors should be allowed on wikipedia due to maturity issues, and if they should be allowed near the tools for the same reason. In my experience most younger users are mature individuals, and I believe that we should judge based solely on contributions. What happens in practice though is that one or two younger users (the "few bad apples") cock up, and the "young editors should be banned from going near the tools" crowd point and scream about "this is why young editors are bad" even though 99% of the younger editors have not done anything wrong. That is what I meant; I would say that this is completely the opposite of blanket ageism. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  I see your point, however you made the statement. Perhaps your wording made it unintentionally seem that you have a problem with younger editors, however if you believe in being judged "based solely on contributions", then I see no need for you to point it out in a totally irrelevant question about the recall process. It's really more of a mistake than a major concern, but it makes you look prejudiced. Esteffect (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  No, I was using it as an example. It wasn't totally irrelevant, I was saying that just like with young users a few people open to recall occasionally cock up and refuse to use it, but that just like with younger users we shouldn't take this to be a representative sample and say that recall is never a good thing. I'm still slightly confused as to how "a few bad apples" within young users became "blanket ageism" but maybe that is just me. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  I've amended my oppose reasoning based on your replies here, however I still don't think younger users needed to be pointed out as an example, as you can see (based on my reaction) what it can cause. I've eliminated it from my opposition reasoning now, so feel free to take this more as advice than a criticism at this stage. Esteffect (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think it can cause anything. Of the 150+ people to comment on this RfA you were the only person to interpret it in that way, which suggests to me that the problem lies at your end rather than here. I take responsibility for my own mistakes and bad phrasing, yes, but when everyone else who has looked at it has gone to you "no, he obviously meant X rather than Y" the problem is obviously your misinterpretation and reaction, not my statement. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  I did misinterpret it, hence why it is striked out in my oppose reasoning. However, you still don't seem to have the best grasp of what to say at the right time - is this really behaviour fitting of an administrator? Comments like that are really the kind of thing that are going to decide whether or not you gain adminship. Esteffect (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  See the response here. Honestly, would it kill people to actually read around the diffs they are quoting? It seems people just go "oh look, there is something I don't like, lets roll with that". Ironholds (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong (and First) Support Cheers. I'^mperator 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, here's the rationale: With over 18960 total edits (almost 19000), Ironholds is one of the most prominent editors in our wiki. His 4,809 deleted contributions signify his vast work in CSD and AFD, where he is constantly debating with good rationale. In addition, he has 6500 article edits, 11 featured items, 2 good articles, and 45 DYKs. Now, with all this astounding article work, you might say that he never interacts with anybody. But no! He has 7073 User_Talk edits, whether they be warning users about vandalism, giving friendly advice to newbies, or co-operating with other users. His editcount also reflects his knowledge of Wikipedian policies- 221 contributions to Usernames for administrator attention, 143 edits to Administrator intervention against vandalism, 52 edits to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and many more. Cheers. I'^mperator 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   For the record, I did this before the RFA! :D Cheers. I'^mperator 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

3. I know of Ironholds as a good, solid net positive candidate, which is the important thing for a RfA. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Has made strong and solid contributions to Wikipedia. Will use tools well. -download | sign! 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Even though he thinks soccer is the real football support That alone is not enough to make me oppose. Ironholds should be a net positive and will not delete the main page or cause the servers to crash. Support and good luck.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support There is no real football (tinrf) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support More full rationale to come. I trust this user with the tools. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - Does good work; no reason not to support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - see no likelihood of abuse, excellent answer to my question, give the poncy git a mop already. //roux   01:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
10. It was my oppose last time around that made Ironholds' last RfA unsuccessful. I've watched him since then, and he's improved greatly. As long as he doesn't resume past behavior when granted adminship, then as far as I'm concerned, he's learnt from his mistakes and can be made an admin. Good luck. Acalamari 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Weak support Except if conduct is egregious, I consider six months to be a statute of limitations. I'll take Ironholds word in good faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
12. It's time. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support -- Ive seen this user at WP:FLC and I feel that he will benefit from the tools, as will WP. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong support - Basically per Daniel. I did write a conom, but it was a load of poncy bollocks, and frankly Daniel said everything I was going to. He's consistently funny, dedicated, knowledgeable, and blatantly bereft of worthwhile activities (hence why he edits so much). Anyone who can interact with me as much as he does and not become a genocidal maniac can handle anything, including the responsibilities of adminship. But really, this support is a load of bollocks. — neuro^(talk) 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. I'm not swayed by the diff that's bothering Fastily (and Scarian). FAC can be stressful; this was a case where Ironholds believed that someone edited his article while it was at FAC, made it worse, and shouted at him in the edit summary. His response didn't help, but he immediately apologized and found something to thank the editor for. That diff doesn't outweigh all the good work he's done, for me, especially at CSD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. A bit of sanity in an overwhelmingly bullshit project. Tan | 39 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    You're also in the overwhelmingly bullshit project (whatever may be but you seems to be referring to Wikipedia). --Caspian blue 04:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

17. Weak support Taking into consideration Scarian's argument, I still believe that the good you've done overshadows that to a certain extent. You're clearly dedicated to WP, despite being active for just under a year, and I hope you'll learn to be a bit more civil in the future. Fredrik • Wilhelm ^U|_T|^C 04:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've been here for around three years, but thanks for the support :). Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

18. Strong Support Much to this Ironholds's chagrin, I work with him nearly every day and feel like I have a good sense of his character as a person and editor. What I see is an editor who's prolific, good-natured, exceptionally clueful, helpful off the charts, and lol-full as well. I also don't find the opposes convincing. In Scarian's first diff I see a harsh response followed by a rational apology. That's exactly what I want admins to do when they make mistakes - take responsibility and apologize maturely. Not exactly to a new user either. The nonsense of low-self esteem I find irrelevant at best and offensive at worst. Everyone has a bad day - and not to go editcountitis, but we're talking about a candidate with 24,000 edits here and tons of great content. FlyingToaster 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support- I've seen Ironholds around in many places, and have always been impressed with this user's clue levels. Reyk _YO! 07:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Strongest possible support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support, Ironholds seems to have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, has put a lot of effort into improving it, and generally seems sensible. While I can see Scarian's diff being somewhat objectionable, I certainly don't consider it anywhere near enough to oppose on given all the other good things I've seen. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I've worked with Ironholds on several articles and talked to him at several London meetups and I believe he is dedicated to Wikipedia and would use the mop well. WereSpielChequers 09:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support I don't see why not, everyone has their bad days. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Excellent contributing editor, but when mop wieldling needs to remember to take a breath and bite his tongue to avoid unneccesary dramas. --GedUK  09:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Strong support - based on my interactions with this editor, he is a valuable asset to Wikipedia, and should continue to show his value as an admin. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support While I acknowledge the diffs presented in the oppose section, I'm just not convinced that they demonstrate a net negative. Yes, one of the diffs was sarcastic and condescending, but we all step out of line once or twice. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 11:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
27. I have immense respect for Ironholds as an editor and as a friend. The nominator sums up Ironholds' excellent work in a variety of areas. Admittedly, the opposing side do have some points about an apparent 'short fuse' (evidenced by one thread; two responses by IH), all I can say about that there are always times when something happens in real life (you get fired, your wife cheats on you with your best friend, you win $100,000 in the lottery only to find you put the ticket through the wash) that just make you RRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! :) and that these moments are inevitable (Don't deny it, you're telling me that you haven't gone a bit skitso once?). IH appears to have had one or two bad days; nothing repetitive and nothing really too serious (I mean, he used caps and perhaps came across as a bit angry, but, putting that into context with what some people did). And that is why I forgive him for a that lapse in civility. For these reasons, I say Yes to Ironholds, yet again. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    If you're concerned about what your wife may do with your best friend, just make sure your best friend is a really hot chick and they agree to let you join in or at least film it. If you picked another dude for your best friend, well then I think you only have yourself to blame. --Teratornis (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

28. Support - per Foxy and to attempt to counter the ridiculous oppose of Sceptre (talk · contribs) below. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Avruch ^T 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I'm particularly impressed by the candidate's very genuine and humble apology for the comment brought up in Scarian's oppose. Anyone can say things they later regret on a rough day, not everyone can swallow their pride and make it right. -- Vary Talk 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - great nom statement, Daniel. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. I've met Ironholds. He strikes me as sane and unlikely to blow up the wiki. It appears he does plenty of useful stuff around the place and can use some extra buttons. There are some concerns amongst those opposing that suggest he should take it slow, keep calm and would benefit from colleagues keeping a watchful eye - at least as he gets started. I'm not sure that prohibiting anyone who occasionally loses their temper in discussions with other users is a positive step (such a rule applied rhetrospectively would rather reduce our pool of admins...!). A nomination from Daniel (no comment on how he'd fare under a "angry comments disqualify users from being admins" regime btw) counts for a lot in my book. WJBscribe (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Weak Support why not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support The opposers make good points but the candidate always seems to come back from the brink and appears good at second guessing himself. I'm not worried at all. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 18:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support I am sure he is suited for the job RobScheurwater (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    You are Scheur I am suited, y'mean :P. Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

36. Trustworthy nominator. Secret ^account 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support as an editor who builds the encyclopedia, and who asks that people be accountable to that goal. Suggest he sit back at this point and let his contributions be his best argument. --StaniStani  20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - I don't support many RfAs. I'm supporting now. I have talked to Ironholds over many months, and, even when he makes a mistake or picks a fight, he has always shown that he is willing to talk to others and correct himself. He has admitted when he overstepped and when he has done or said something wrong many times. This is a rare trait within adminship. If he ever causes a problem, I am sure that he is willing to actually do what it takes to correct it. I cannot say that for many. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
39. About fucking time. Although it is a short time since the very interesting last RfA I still believe Irony is more than capable of welding the mop, as it were.  GARDEN  21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Weak support iMatthew // talk // 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support the Emo-Potter He is a good egg and he won't misuse the tools. Might be part of a zioist conspiracy though. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support per Skinwalker and WP:AGF. No reason why not. --John (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Majorly talk 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support: I have seen this user around and the opposes don't outweigh my own feeling that this is a good contributor. ^Law _shoot! 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. The oppose difs do not convince me. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Outstanding contributor and user ,further no one can question his dedication towards the project or that he will misuse the tools or question his policy knowledge .He has used rollback well.Do feel we need to Assume Good Faith towards contributors who contribute immensely and here to stay for years and Acarmari rightly points this user has improved since the last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support - the user clearly knows what it means to build the encyclopedia, and I have no doubt he will use the tools effectively, especially, as he promises, by applying CSD. The diff where he shouted is a complete non-issue: probably within the bounds of WP:CIV (certainly of WP:NPA), apology issued two hours later, and writing those three lines positively does not constitute reason to forget or obviate a year's worth of solid work. The open-to-recall business is becoming a bit like the Medieval flotation test at witch-hunts (if she couldn't float, she drowned, and if she could, she was a witch and hence burned): either way some people will be unhappy. Rather than nixing Ironholds' bid on those grounds alone, we should have more thorough reform of the process and not penalise him alone for the difficulty of desysopping. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support He knows what he's doing. Sure, he may have made a bad decision or two, but he has acknowledged it and apologized. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support While Scarian's diff is troubling, I believe that the benefits of granting Ironholds adminship outweigh the risks. faithless (^speak) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support For the same reasons as last time. Wronkiew (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Weak support. Scarian's evidence is quite strong, and it took me a while to decide if I was going to support. In the end though, we need more admins. Wizardman 06:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
53. The candidate generally meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Thus, support as candidate’s lone block was rapidly overturned, User:Ironholds/Awards is always good to see, and per reasonable stances in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well (church), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizha James, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptosporidium (Destroy All Humans!), but oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breuner Airfield. Nevertheless, the positives overwhelm the lone negative. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
54. I can't remember ever noticing any problems with Ironholds; everything I remember seeing has been okay. Furthermore, I'm not swayed by the opposers. Lastly, Will, above, says that he's met Ironholds and trusts that he won't blow up the wiki, and I trust Will's judgment here. Best of luck. Cheers, wodup 07:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support I've not personally had any contact with this editor but I have seen him/her around. I don't see any reason not to allow this editor to get the bit. The editors editing history says a lot in my opinion and what I have seen around doesn't change the fact that this editor cares about the project thus I think would be good for an administrator. Good luck to you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Good editor, I've had limited but positive interactions with him. The diff about the CAPS was troubling, but not so bad as to move me from support as taking in a good light was an attempt at humor. That said, it isn't the best evidence that this user will have the level of interaction with others that I'd ideally like to see in a user. But this is about trust, and he has mine. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. After carefully reading over all issues brought up, I think this is worth a support; I do believe you would be an excellent admin. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support I came accross Ironholds a while ago and had he raise a valid concern over an edit style i was doing. I found his discussion to be in line, and raised some points which at the time i wasnt considering. Ive come to understand more about wikipedia since our discussion and am trying to be a better editor in large part to his advice (which to me is what an admin is about), my thanks to him is my support here Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support I acknowledge the matters raised in the oppose section are non-trivial. The bottom line for me, though, is he's clearly dedicated to the project. He acknowledges and attempts to address his errors. He appears to genuinely care about the community's standards and mores. As such I believe he will attempt to improve the encyclopedia with the tools. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support per my support in his last RFA. Icewedge (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Strong Support. I have had nothing but great interactions with this editor, and he won't abuse the tools. Additionally, the whole flap with the recall situation seems nonsensical, as there is no correct answer. If he said yes, he is open to recall, the response would be (and is) "Well, how do we know you'll keep that promise?" If he said no, people would oppose because he's not willing to be subject to recall. I don't get it. Firestorm ^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support - I trust Ironholds. AdjustShift (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
63. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support You deserve a strong support for your overall contributions, but a weak oppose for your recent incivility. Just promise you'll keep any testiness to a minimum, and I can be proud of my support here. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
65. You've been around and shown commendable dedication to the encyclopaedia; I'm not entirely confident you won't be an abusive administrator, but I'm supporting now on faith. I hope you'll repay the trust shown to you in this discussion after your misadventures. Best, Skomorokh 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Strong Support: A very wise editor indeed and I have had great personal experiences with him. Though we didn't exactly get along, he was always civil and fair so I strongly support.N.G.G. 12:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support – I read through the opposes, and that talk page message, and nothing stands out to me. Adminship doesn't require perfection (name me that user), and I think Ironholds will do fine as an admin. TheAE talk/sign 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    Support. He's shown so much dedication to WP and has made much improvement since the prevous RsfA (RequestS for Adminship, not Request for AdminshipS). Even Ottava supports him, I gotta support him too. Valley2city^‽ 16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Changed to Oppose. I previously didn't weigh in the valid concern and when I !voted just now didn't realize I weighed in on this last week. Sorry. Valley2city^‽ 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

68. support The primary objection seems to be that the user has sarcastically used all caps to explain to another user why not to use them. That's hardly compelling grounds for opposition. The other concerns about civility are either not major enough, not frequent enough or not recent enough to be a concern. I'm also perplexed by opposes based on the worry that he might leave the project. If he leaves that's not the end of the world. We don't lose anything by having him as an admin for while he's here. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Patton^t/c 20:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Support as I am happy that Ironholds will be a net positive as an admin. Bencherlite^Talk 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Concerns below noted, but I believe Ironholds has the necessary skills to make a good admin. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
72. Support: He will bring us into a new millenium. South Bay (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
73. miranda 03:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Support Was about to Oppose, but reading your answers (esp. to 7) and the testimony of Acalamari and others changed my mind. However, the link Rjd serves up is definitely bitey, so I'd ask that you please try extra hard to be gentle with newbies in NPP and across the encyclopedia. Biting newcomers is what turns away the new contributors we need pretty badly at this point. Best of luck, Steven Walling (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Support struck, see my oppose vote. Steven Walling (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

74. Support: Civility concerns aren't of sufficient seriousness to Oppose, and to be fair, I'd rather we promoted a few users with minor civility concerns that we can work with to knock into shape, rather than promote so called Squeaky Clean administrators that turn out to be completely against the best interests of the project - it is (or certainly was) always the 100% support admins that end up being desysopped. Nick (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
75. Support I briefly reviewed contributions of Ironholds (including deleted) and found nothing that would cause me to oppose. This editor has a wide experience in the deletion area and vast majority of his CSD taggings are correct. The summary usaged is 100% and other concernes from the previous RFAs seems to have been addresed. So I decided to support. Ironholds obviously wants to be an administrator and, I think, he will be an asset for the project. Ruslik (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
76. Strong Support Outstanding answer to my question. You showed sensitivity, yet still explained where my error was. I'm confident you'll be a good admin. JustGettingItRight (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
77. the wub "?!" 14:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
78. Support The CAPITALIZATION incident CLEARLY was MEANT to be IRONIC / EDUCATIONAL. Also, low self-esteem is a sign of quality. Unomi (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    You've been here exactly 12 days and this is the first RfA vote you've voted on, apparently, ever. Yet, you manage to read (at least some of) the oppose section to find out what one of the main causes for concern are and you haven't voted on a single other RfA. There are numerous RfAs on the WP:RfA shortcut list but you chose this one, and you supported after bothering to read the oppose section? You've apparently had no [on-Wiki] contact with Ironholds prior to your support, and yet you decided to read his oppose section, and then support his RfA. Something is going on here. You don't just randomly find an RfA as a new user and decide you're going to support, and the only way you could've gleaned that above information is if you had read some of the oppose section... or had someone tell you the basics? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    So you take issue with the fact that this is my first RfA vote, you do realize that everyone has a first regarding RfA voting?

    You also seem to take issue with the fact that I read the arguments for and against? Guilty as charged.

    When I first started with wikipedia I had numerous questions and issues, I took them to irc because I was hoping to get more immediate feedback, IronHolds made me feel welcome and helped me find my way around. When I realized via random chat that IronHolds was up for RfA I felt based on prior interaction that he would make a good admin.

    The issues raised in the oppose section taken on balance do not seem particularly fair or meaty. I agree that smashthestate page should not be deleted, but there are seemingly many many pages that come up for deletion that are chosen to be kept on merit, that is the whole idea of the process. As a newbie I have found nothing but patience from his side. Reading the diff you cite regarding the capitalization it struck me that it was actually not as 'aggressive' as you tried to make it out to be, rather it showed (I believe deliberately) exactly why caps should be avoided. I actually do believe that 'low self esteem' should that be a trait of IH is a sign of quality, as per Charles Darwin: 'Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge'. The issue of 'he might leave' is specious, no one is exempt from the vagaries of the future.

    What I find much more troubling than anything that has been raised is the fact that you seem to have taken it upon yourself to 'investigate' those in the 'support' section, or was it just me? Leaving comments such as 'Hmm' on my talkpage knowing I had been here for only 12 days seems almost an attempt at intimidation. Unomi (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    BTW: This is the edit that IH responded to, I know this not because someone whispered in my ear but because I bothered to LOOK and THINK. Unomi (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Scarian: I have not suggested anything to Unomi, and I do not know of anyone who has; if he has decided to comment here it is of his own free will, and without any partisan influence. I note that several oppose !voters have fairly obviously not read the conversations they are citing in their rationales; going to complain about them next, are you? I don't think so. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

79. Cautious Support - we need more admins, especially in difficult areas such as policing pages and subjects under arb sanctions. Person shows dedication and a bit of article wirting is a big enough plus for me to consider a net positive despite opposes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
80. Support no issues among our interactions StarM 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
81. Support While I understand the position of some of the below opposition, I don't find the arguments compelling. I've looked through a lot of Ironholds edits over quite a while. I see an editor who gets what the site is about and seems to have its best interests at heart. I can't see that giving Ironholds the few extra buttons is risking damaging the site and think that the admin bit would be a net positive for the site - Peripitus (Talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
82. Support I've never encountered any problems with Ironholds' edits, and he's always been (imo) a friendly, approachable and knowledgeable editor. CultureDrone (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
83. Support I would have co-nominated him if my internet connection hadn't wonked out last week. This is a fantastic and clueful editor who has apparently made a few enemies judging by the multitude of downright ridiculous oppose reasons. Trusilver 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
84. Support - we always need more administrators, and Ironholds is a good candidate. Xenus (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
85. Support - Good work in mainspace, seems fine. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
86. Support - Seems to pass my criteria well - you are experienced, has many contributions, and has a net positive history. The now infamous comment you made in part caps does not concern me, you were just trying to get an idea across and it was not really incivil. You decision to be open to recall, nor this been one of several RfAs you have had, does not concern me either. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
87. Weak Support while some of the oppose issues concern me, I'm going to support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
88. Weak support Although the concerns I expressed in the last RfA are largely allayed, I am not without worry here, per, mainly, Jclemens, Goodmorningworld, Scarian, and Pascal. There is enough to (re)commend Ironholds, though, that I conclude that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive; the relative lack of confidence I have in that conclusion would otherwise push me to "neutral", but I, perhaps dumbly, believe that the candidate has fleshed out his criteria for recall sufficiently that the community will have real recourse should he prove a problematic admin. Joe 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
89. suppport. Intelligent. Committed. I will yell at if they can't stay polite in admin taks.Geni 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
90. Strong support per Daniel's nom, Imperiator, and Foxy Loxy. Many, many admins act uncivil at some point in time or another, so I don't see why we should oppose IH for a one-off incident! Any user as helpful as IH is more than welcome to be an admin, IMO. →Dyl@n620 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
91. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 05:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    Support This one was a tough one for me, a little over-emotional at times, a little over eager - but the bottom line is that I believe Ironholds has good intensions, values the wiki, and wants to do what is right for Wikipedia. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 06:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

92. Support I reseve the right to disagree with him (and likely will), but that does not mean he would not be a decent admin by any means. Count is on the cusp at this point - I hope this puts him over. Collect (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
93. Will the editor become a good admin? Dunno. Can I trust that the admin will not purposely use the tools to disrupt the encyclopedia. Absolutely, hence Support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Helpful and fair. I am sure he would make a good admin. Sure could use a little more civility, but he'll learn :) Lucifer (Talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
95. Support I'm surprised to see the diff on Oppose #1, but it's been my experience that Ironholds is a cool head who can handle even the most stressful conflicts gracefully. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
96. Support No reason to see that he will abuse the tools. May be uncivil at times, but he'll get over that. Until It Sleeps 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
97. Support If this succeeds there are going to be a lot of eyes on Ironholds, which will make it very unlikely that he'll be misusing or abusing the tools. Clearly dedicated to the project, and I like that the candidate has continued to be himself and not some watered down version just to pass RfA. AniMate^talk 21:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    WP:100 :D iMatthew // talk // 21:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    Added by moi. :) →Dyl@n620 21:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    Probably best to wait until the final tally, as someone has already changed to oppose making this a fairly short lived WP:100. I don't doubt we'll see some more supports, but I've seen more than one RfA go from +100 to far less when something "scandalous" comes out. Pretty sure holding off on this isn't a big deal. AniMate^talk 01:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

98. Support. and I don't care what number shows up when I hit "save". Ironholds seems to operate mostly on common sense and logic whilst not being afraid to point out flaws in other's senses or logic. That certainly tends to draw out some claws on Wikipedia, true. Keeper | 76 01:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
99. Support. Despite all the RfAs, these are not of great concern to me, and I feel that this user will not misuse the tools. Much luck, Jd027 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
100. Support. Impressive mainspace work. Opposes are not of too great a concern to me. Artichoker^[talk] 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
101. Support Seen him around the 'pedia. Contributes good work. Unlikely to abuse the tools.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 18:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
102. Support I've been waffling on this one for a while... the opposes have valid reasons to oppose, but in the end, I do think IH would do a decent job as an admin. I can't point to any salient point to prove it, it is more of a gut feeling here. But I'm going to go with it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - User, despite his answer to question 3, is not the sort of person to calm down disputes. Looking here (and his apology here which shows how he jumped to conclusions with: "Ahh, I see what you mean.") shows his tendency to still bite. Amandajm has been here for four months. I'd bet everything I own that Ironholds should have acted better on that. In his apology he notes that he's had a bad day; I shudder to think what sort of wrath a really bad day would bring (Note - I don't think that this diff is the most important; candidate has defended himself strongly on this one, and AGF'ing, it wouldn't be as prominent). Along the lines of bad days is this (Notice the heading of "Your semi-retirement"); so, Ironholds, you felt like the community couldn't trust you a few days ago and now you wish to have an RfA? While I admit I do not know the backstory it seems like you are very prone to "burnout", low self-esteem (that can adversely affect your editing ability), and civility issues that you have not resolved since your last RfA. Re: The Real American thing: You got a bit "sardonic"? That sounds like baiting to me; you referred to it as if it "was dreamt up by a twelve year old"? Did you think that would make him even more calm? Despite the fact that he was an obvious troll you still fed and teased him. That's just not how things work. And show diffs that you're not proud of in question 3; honesty is the best policy. In summary, I'm afraid I believe that this user would be prone to burnout and "edit fatigue", which could lead to some really bad decisions. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see how a low self esteem can affect my editing. Backstory on the "not respected" diff; Atyndall/Foxy and I discussed a possible RfA nomination for him. All I meant was that I'm no Balloonman or Bibliomaniac; It would be safe to say I'm not known/particularly respected as a nominator, particularly considering my previous nomination. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Amandajm has been here for four months, yes, and shows a good grasp of wiki policy; with respect, and without wishing to "lawyer up" I hardly see how WP:BITE applies. My edit here was in response to this; I was simply trying to give an example of exactly why that style of writing is bad. My "jumping to conclusions" was not to do with my temperament or civility; it was an issue of content which I was agreeing with, not an issue of whether or not his edit summary or my response was appropriate. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Of course self-esteem can affect your editing. Low self-esteem lowers your mood and tolerance for general irritance, of which, you're going to experience a lot more as an administrator. Re: Amandajm. Two wrongs do not make a right. Typing back in caps is not very likely to cool a situation (Please see your answer to question 3). Re: The Real American. Can you please respond to that concern of mine? Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   My moments of low self-esteem normally make me curl up in a ball, not go on a bite-spree. The situation with The Real American probably wasn't my best attempt at helping, but I'd rather be honest with the RfA community and bring it up than have it surface later (or not at all, in which case I might have been +sysopped under false pretences). It wasn't intentional baiting (cue "lacks judgement, understanding of own actions" oppose) and I'd disagree with you defining him as a troll; I don't think he was here to cause trouble or harm the wiki, I just think he was unaware of Wikipedia's various policies. Without wishing to make a call on this (I'm not a judge) I'd say that it is most likely, given his editing style and contributions, that he was simply a young person who ended up on the wrong side of the fence rather than someone who set out to cause problems. Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Forgive me, but I don't quite understand. While your approach, as stated, is commendable, it seems to me that you were not assuming AGF at the time. I think your behaviour in the diffs are a far better indicator of your potential behaviour as an admin than your reply here. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'd like to comment on the self-esteem issue. If a user has accumulated three years of Wikipedia study and experiences low self-esteem, I have just the cure: go answer questions on the Help desk and our other help pages for a while. This has several benefits:

   • Nothing takes one's mind off one's own problems like focusing on other people's problems.
   • No matter how modest you think your Wikipedia skills are, I guarantee you will see an endless parade of users on the Help desk whose skills are substantially more modest. Solve a few of their problems, and they will worship you as a god.
   • You will soon realize that out of our 48,310,541 registered users (and the similar number of unregistered users), perhaps only between 1% and maybe 5% at most have gotten as far on Wikipedia as you have. In other words, the impression one gets from a highly selective Wikipedia meetup may be wildly unrepresentative of the general user population, most of whom seem to be groping about in bewilderment. And they desperately need your help.
   • For the 97% of adult males who are not sociopaths, helping others is emotionally gratifying. This may offset some or all of the negative emotions one may (unwisely) choose to experience in response to being less than the most accomplished Wikipedian. (Everyone is imperfect in some ways, and of course we are surrounded by imperfection in everyone else and in all human artifacts; we should all recognize this, and react with constructive rather than negative emotions. The constructive response is to ask: what can I do to improve something?)
   • Accumulating a track record of helpfulness with those most in need of help can only bolster one's chances in a Request for adminship.

   --Teratornis (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Not commenting on anything else in this oppose, but I can assure you that Amandajm has been here for more than four months. I remember that she was one of the first people I gave rollback to, and that was over a year ago. Acalamari 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps I got them confused with someone else. I've struck it. Regardless, it's still inexcusable. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   A comment on the "self-esteem" issue, an alternative possibility could be an underestimation of own competence, while unpleasant, this is not a bad sign at all, and it disappears with time, see also Downing effect. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Scarian. While I do like the contributions that Ironholds made to the project, the behavior that Scarian brought up is ridiculous, especially for an rfa candidate. If it were not for this rude comment, especially since it was made 2 days ago, I would have strongly supported. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, this thing? Ironholds (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, that would be it - Fastily (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Absolutely not at this stage Sorry Ironholds, 2 days ago (diffs provided by Scarian above) you thought it was okay to yell at another editor to prove your point that editors shouldn't yell at others; your response above detailing that this had nothing to do with your temperament is incorrect by your own words in return to Admandajm which included, I've had a bad day (although that really shouldn't excuse it). This thread occurred despite the fact that you only 5 days earlier understood enough about your current level of participation to have come to the decision that you would semi-retire using the words about yourself to another editor's request for help in their RfA nomination - I won't be going ahead with it, I'm afraid; not to worry, I'm sure you can find someone tne community respects a bit more who would be willing to help you out. Today I am left with the overwhelming feeling also that you are not quite sure of your readiness when you question above, I don't see how a low self esteem can affect my editing. With the utmost respect, I think you should perhaps take the time to consider Adminship quite a while longer and see if this is really something you are ready for.--VS ^talk 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Have you seen my reply to Scarian's points? My "lack of respect" was in reference to my reputation as a nominator for RfAs (namely: no reputation whatsoever), not to my "low self esteem". Ironholds (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Ironholds - I'd rather not get into a great debate here because of an oppose comment that I have provided - and yes I did read Scarian's comment. I'd be happy to discuss it elsewhere, however I will just say again 7 days ago you had semi-retired; 2 days ago you yelled at another editor, and today you state the question, (using your words) I don't see how a low self esteem can affect my editing. The fact is (others make this clear also above) - low self esteem (you had had a bad day) did effect your editing and only 2 days ago. Adminship (despite it apparently not being a big deal) will make you tear your hair out every now and again - so the diffs above (and below now from the neutral) do leave me with reasonable concern at this time. Oh and I should add that I come to this conclusion despite having the greatest respect for your nominator.--VS ^talk 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   And not to get into a debate, but low self esteem and a bad day are different things entirely. My comment that seems to have been interpreted as low self esteem (along the lines of "I'm not particularly respected around RfA") is entirely separate from my semi-retirement rationale. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Per Scarian. The burnout issue more than the civility issue. We're already losing admins, and I really don't want to see that number of admins who are leaving raise more than it should. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   So you are opposing because I might later leave? Ironholds (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Pretty much. I'd expect an admin to stick around for a bit. There is also a case to be made about addiction and/or attention-seeking: if you retired a week ago, but are at RfA, you might want to get out a bit more. And historically, easing out of Wikipedia is better than slapping on the "retired" template. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   So your answer to the ever decreasing number of active admins and ever increasing admins workload is to appoint less admins who are going to end up doing more work? Seddσn ^talk 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   User:Sceptre is being righteously pissy over someone "leaving." Unbefuckinglievable. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Hi, while I don't wish to aggravate the situation further; might I recommend that you bring your concerns about Will, to his talk page? Rather than at an RfA. If you have a problem with a user, usually, you bring it to their attention on their talkpage. Profanities usually just cloud a situation and create drama. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose I've opposed you in the past, and I'm opposing you again today, yet I still have tremendous respect for you as an editor. That said, I just think you are a guaranteed ticking time bomb as an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose 6 times running for adminship (including experimental one, but I consider it an independent one that should've gone to Editor's review) and recent incivility case are pretty much good reason to oppose. No thanks. We don't need more such admins. --Caspian blue 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Switch to Strong oppose per the candidate's personal attacks on his own RFA page and WT:RFA[1][2] to Sceptre (talk · contribs) and opposers and this.[3] (Pedro well pointed out.--Caspian blue 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

   Note: General discussion moved to talk page. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose There's nothing necessarily wrong with three RFA runs in nine months, but that pattern will understandably raise eyebrows and make people wonder why you're so eager for the bit. The frequency, coupled with continued civility concerns (infrequent though they may be), unfortunately raises a red flag. Not all good editors are well suited for adminship. Townlake (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Townlake, theoretically, suppose someone looks at his last two RFAs and this one (I discount the first two; he didn't know what to expect), and concludes that he did a good job each time of doing what the voters had asked for in the previous RFA. Would the multiple runs then be a net negative or a net positive for you? I can see it either way; I just hope that people don't start avoiding RFA til they're "perfect". That would cut the RFA community out of the feedback loop and drive the number of candidates way down. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Could go either way in your hypothetical; it depends. (Anyone can suppress a single bad wiki-habit for six months.) I agree candidates don't need to be perfect. Let's leave it at that. Townlake (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Not the behavior or temperament I expect of an admin. —Dark ^talk 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC) On further thoughts... —Dark ^talk 07:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose I do not trust him. — Aitias // discussion 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Note - This user has expressed his desire for a "right to vanish" here before posting this. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   It's not clear to me that Aitias has claimed the WP:RTV yet, but there's been enough discussion about it (WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Aitias's Right to Vanish) that I don't think Ottava's comment is out of line. (Normally, of course, people will jump on you for making arguments at RFA along the lines of "You can't trust this comment because this person did X." Right-to-vanish literally means the person isn't allowed to edit any more without sacrificing the right, so it should definitely be mentioned when it has actually happened.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Small note - Dan, you can't question whether the vote stands or not as you currently have a conflict of interest. Let a 'crat decide. With this whole drama thing going on I doubt the closing 'crat will not take into account the RTV thing. :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oops. You're right that that came across as offering a "ruling"; not my place, as I'm not a crat. I missed that because it wasn't on my mind. I feel strongly that the two groups of people who are the most important to the smooth functioning of RFA are the candidates and the people who do a competent job opposing (for reasons on the talk page), so occasionally, I volunteer a defense to something an opposer has just said (and hopefully I keep it on target, but that's also not my call). I know that people have gotten jumped on in a major way for ad hominem objections to rationales, and I wanted to keep that from happening here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose — Primarily per the concerns and points raised by Scarian and Townlake. The one incident that everybody is referring to was just two days ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   That is more fun and playful than most responses I have seen. No personal attacks, demonstrating some absurdity and the rest. I laughed, and, as a bitter person, my laughter should mean a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Pro tip: read the comment without capitalisation. You're left with a very civil response. I see the punctuation as you do Ottava - demonstrating some absurdity while making a point. FlyingToaster 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   You'll note that I didn't say I agreed that this comment was absolutely horrible. Scarian made several points and I merely stated (for clarity) that this particular diff was only from two days ago. I don't think that the comment was "good", but again, it wasn't horrible or anything like that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Scarian and Rjd. Prodego ^talk 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Not right for role. Mike R (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC) My apologies; I confused you with another user whose username begins with "Iron". Mike R (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose regretfully. Great contributions, but there are some significant temperament/civility issues that need to be addressed. MuZemike 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Serious concerns raised by Scarian. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Sorry, I would be scared if you had the tools, I find you somewhat intimidating. — R² 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    That is a bit odd -I can't recall us interacting in yonks- but you are entitled to your opinion. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose While I have respect for you, I have a major trust issue. Per Scarian. America69 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Due to the fact that it appears that you haven't learned anything from your four previous RFA's, so I do not feel comfortable with you having the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'd encourage you to take another look at those RfA's. Two of them were NOTNOW's, so clearly he's learned from them. Perhaps you could address a particular issue that you're referring to? FlyingToaster 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose per all of the above opposes. The issues raised by Scarian, the 5 previous RfAs, I just don't think you're ready. LittleMountain5 ^review! 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Isn't it a tad absurd to say that someone is not ready when they have been here for longer than a lot of candidates and some of his previous RfAs were very early on and were stopped for not being ready? By your logic, his 6th, 7th, 8th, etc, RfA would have to be stopped for not being ready. "Not Ready" becomes absurd after a few RfAs and having over 9 months of experience. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've struck the 5 RfA part as I see what you're getting at. But in my opinion, no, he isn't ready. Ironholds is a great editor, no doubt, but with the civility issues and such, I have to oppose. LittleMountain5 ^review! 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose 6th RFA? Is this a joke? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Fifth RfA, and no. I wasn't aware there was a limit. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think a caucus on the general issue of "too many RFAs" might be helpful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    5th RFA still equally embarrassing. And you apparently lack the ability to turn off your "lawtalker" shtick. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    "lawtalker" shtick? Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hmm there has been quite a number of users (myself included), who was promoted with 5 or more RFAs Secret ^account 22:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    That's hardly reassuring then :) Majorly talk 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Crotchety Old Man by name, Crotchety Old Man by nature? Anyone? Geddit? Majorly talk 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose "I won't support a candidate who is open to recall because it doesn't work." If you can convince me that a 'crat would have desysoped Elonka had she made the request you place above, then I'd consider supporting you, and will remove my oppose. I am, however, unconvinced that a 'crat would ignore your theoretically wikilawyering, not saying that you would. Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Trying his hardest to bind himself to a broken promise demonstates that he's one that the process would not be needed on. To neutral.

    Wikilawyering: do you mean "convince me that a 'crat would have desysopped Elonka if she had followed the recall process you set out above?" Ironholds (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    If you can convince me that a steward would desysop you for breaking your above promises, then I'll remove my oppose. I don't believe they are willing to accept binding RFA promises. Hipocrite (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed, I'm not quite sure how to do that. Would finding a steward willing to say "yes, I would" count? Ironholds (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    In a flash. Hipocrite (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    I haven't been able to find one, but the relevant talkpage discussion and my answer to Q. 9 may help. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose Based on points raised by Scarian, Fastily and Pascal Tesson regarding incivility and problems with PROD tagging. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall promises are made ad captandum vulgus, are unenforceable, and have a vanishingly small chance of removing problem admins given the historical record. Skinwalker (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Is this the new "prima facie" vote? This was cut and pasted from another RfA. I hate this place. Tan | 39 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hey, you can't have a blanket !oppose without a bit of Dog Latin. Until recall is enforceable I will continue to view such statements as empty campaign promises. I note I'm not the only editor with these concerns. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    I agree, Tan. It's utterly unfortunate that anyone would look past everything a candidate has done and give a blind vote based on what is an opinion, and not one central to the core of Wikipedia values. It's not fair to the candidates, who deserve to be evaluated thoughtfully, or to the community, who is taking their time to evaluate thoughtfully. FlyingToaster 23:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    I agree. There are better ways of opposing the recall system; taking it out on a candidate without evaluating their contributions is getting into WP:POINT territory. And saying that signing up to recall is an "empty campaign promise" is nothing more than a bald and unsubstantiated assertion that the candidate is lying. Reyk _YO! 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    This is a template oppose vote, made without looking at the candidate's contributions, or history. All it basically says is "I think the candidate is a liar, and be bad enough, if promoted, to be worthy of recall. I can't prove it, but I'll oppose anyway, and not supply a shred of reasoning." Please don't feed the trolls. Thanks, Majorly talk 00:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Majorly, if you think there's a problem with my RFA !voting you're welcome to raise it at ANI, WT:RFA, my talk page, or some other more suitable venue. Otherwise, do not impute bad faith or put words in my mouth as you have above. I've given more than a shred of reasoning on the topic here and elsewhere, and I'm not alone in having strong reservations about recall pledges. Skinwalker (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Do you honestly think "raising" your voting pattern at RFA talk or one of the other venues would make the slightest bit of difference? What did you say, if not what I decoded from your copypaste rationale? It is the opposes like this that put the candidate in a ridiculous position - if they agree with recall, they're opposed. If they don't agree, they're opposed. Nobody wins. Majorly talk 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Would you say the same thing to people who responded to the question about lolcall "I'm sorry, but recall is a broken process. While I could promise to be open to it, that promise does nothing for you. Until such time as there is some way to bind myself to recall, I cannot in good conscience support a band-aid on a bullet wound. Sorry." with "oppose, candidate will not be open to recall?" Hipocrite (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    We're discussing recall on the talk page of this RFA; hop in. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose - Pascal's deletion evidence aside, my biggest reason is the recent incivility. The candidate's sassy responses on this RfA aren't helping. Also, considering semi-retirement and adminship in the same week doesn't make me feel particularly confident about the candidate's staying power. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Scarian. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Points already raised in this discussion, to me, show a temper which the candidate has to deal with first. Some responses seem to be "spur of the moment", rather raw statements that should not be given by an administrator. Also, some of the candidate's responses on this page make me feel uneasy. Ironholds however is a teriffic editor, and would, I think, make a good admin once the issues on the fringes are worked out. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Weak Oppose The shouting spree and the weird deletions would hold up on their own but together they just don't paint a picture of what we expect from our admins. ThemFromSpace 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Heyoo. I know I'm not meant to argue over opposes, but if it helps provide some context: this was intended as a response to the edit summary here; not to shout but merely to show the user in question what it looked like when one posted in caps (which given the response to the situation here seems to have worked rather too well). I appreciate that probably isn't enough to change most people's views, but providing context (and indicating it wasn't a shout) is good in any situation.Ironholds (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Strengthened my oppose !vote based off of recent behaviour on the RfA talk page. ThemFromSpace 00:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose over answer to question 7. Fails to understand size of BLP problem and that "vandalism" is by no means the main part of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    You put "vandalism" in quotes, but I don't see him saying it, so your quote seems inaccurate. What specifically is your issue with his answer? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    9th word of the answer is vandalism.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    Vandalism is a major part of the problem. Indeed many, possibly the majority of serious BLP problems that subjects get unhappy about are about vandalism. In any event, I fail to see how a reply about a policy question which doesn't alter the candidates ability to carry out admin duties (especially because this isn't an area he seems to have much interest in using the tools in) is at all relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    While flagrant vandalism to BLPs of famous people may get the most attention, it's not what does the real damage or cuase the biggest problems. The biggest problems come from people edit in good faith but who don't care about BLP issues and have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from their editing patterns. See the recent history of Lily Allen and the BLP notice board discussion for example. I don't think an editor who doesn't recognize the scope of this problem and who dismisses the issue like Ironholds does understands what's going on well enough to be an admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

    Fact of the day: I can't read for shit. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

    WP:DYK? FlyingToaster 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose Clearly not administrator material. Keepscases (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    Clearly? How? wodup 12:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    Lots of opposes from respected editors, numerous failed RFAs, I opposed in the past and see no reason to switch. Keepscases (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    Not saying that your oppose is bad or unconstructive, but tbh I don't find your oppose reason all that convincing. It's much better to form your own opinion based on evidence you find, than looking over what other people wrote and forming your opinion primarily based on that. It's helpful to look over what people wrote so far to get an idea what other people think of this candidate, but in the end try to form you own opinion not based on other editors, but based on your own standards of adminship. Opposing a candidate purely for a reason because editor X opposed, overall, is not really something I find convincing, unless you oppose for the same reasons other users opposed for. Generally though, if you want to be more convincing, it's always best to form your own opinion. (Comment from a non-participant) 山本一郎 (会話) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    The oppose is perfectly legitimate. There is nothing wrong with reiterating salient points that others have already mentioned. If they agree, why struggle to find some arbitrary original rationales? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not saying the oppose is not legitimate, yes it is a perfectly legitimate oppose and I can understand where he/she is coming from, it's just that the statement is rather vague and needs more impact to be convincing, even making very brief references of the issues raised by others who opposed is a bit better than a vague statement saying something like "because of other people opposed". 山本一郎 (会話) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

26. Oppose Good editor but emotions might get the better of them.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose per Scarian and Pascal. Seems to be a good editor overall, but some just aren't suited for the mop. I also take issue with Seddon's comment about the previous RfA not counting merely because it was experimental. If it had succeeded, would Ironholds have merely said "no no, this one doesn't count, we were just running a test"? GlassCobra 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose Seems to be a good editor, but I am troubled by the recent semi-retirement and some talk page edits which do not appear to reflect a significant improvement since the last RfA. Having a lot of RfAs can be a bad sign, but it doesn't have to be. Coupled with the other evidence I see here, especially in the Neutral section, I feel I must oppose for now. One final thought: I hope BLP stance will not become a cause for another RfA battleground, and I will not oppose solely because of what I view as a weaker than optimal BLP stance, but it certainly factors into the decision. Enigma^msg 22:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Centralized discussion for this user's vote: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#User:DougsTech. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

30. Oppose Does not seem to take the role seriously enough as evidenced in the answers to questions at the top. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Can you please specify which question you mean? I see very serious answers to nearly all of the questions...NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

31. Oppose as I do anyone who tries this many runs at RfA. Anyone who wants to be an admin that badly should on no account be selected. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose. This editor has been rejected by the community how many times? Now, he's trying a fifth time. How many times does the community need to say "no", before the message gets through?--Berig (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose per Scarian (talk · contribs) and Rjd0060 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose based on candidate's nomination of a user page for deletion. The nomination was landslided out of Wikipedia but not before causing needless drama and disruption.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Further reading on the topic from the nominated-for-deletion user's talk page. Townlake (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

35. Oppose Although this user is very knowledgeable and capable, I am extremely uncomfortable giving the mop to someone who cannot consistently demonstrate the ability to stay cool and civil. Outbursts such as this instance of calling an RfA candidate "at best an idiot...and at worst a very poor liar" stand in stark contrast to Wikipedia's core value of operating as a civilized and collaborative environment. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Just a pointer; that diff is about six months old. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Not to split hairs here but it's slightly under five months old and, in my opinion, very indicative of a long-term pattern in behaviour. The above diff happened only two weeks after your previous RfA which had an oppose section loaded with diffs indicative of incivility, biteyness and overall aggressive tone in dealing with certain issues. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, but that shows a continuation of behaviour for two weeks after an RfA. I have no problem with you opposing based on examples of inciviliy recently; indeed, those would strengthen your argument, since if it was a long term problem one would expect more recent diffs to be available. Ironholds (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    This is more recent. I understand that this was done in a response to an edit summary that could have basically been paramount to taunting but, as an administrator, your job is to calm the situation down and help the editor return to constructive editing rather than trying to win a perceived argument by way of sarcastic and utterly unhelpful remarks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    The user was editing constructively, that was never in question. I would debate whether or not it could be called "unhelpful"; the purpose was to show exactly why talking in caps is a bad idea, as it gives the wrong impression (something helpful). I'd say it fulfilled that role rather too well. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well then, I guess that's the crux of the issue at hand. What I consider to be a bitey, sarcastic remark that contains information helpful only to those that can brush off the heavy sarcasm, you consider that same remark to be very helpful. I find it not in the best interest of a collaborative community. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

36. Oppose. He has a tendency to patronize other editors as pointed out above. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose Ironholds is a great editor, but comments within the last 24 hours to me indicate some kind of desperation to be an admin - a desperation I'm not able to interpret as wholy positive. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm curious - which comments? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I can't speak for Pedro, but personally I found this one from the WT:RFA page a bit surprising. It's understandable that Ironholds would disagree with some opposers, but I imagine he's been avoiding using this kind of language in the actual RFA for a reason. Townlake (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    Townlake got the exact one I was thinking of. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I was referring to Sceptre's oppose. I've avoided directly commenting on it in-RfA because 1) Sceptre is notoriously stubborn when it comes to changing his opinion, 2) every possible reason why it is a stupid oppose has been mentioned and 3) it could be perceived as badgering (although then so could this). Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

38. Oppose per a lot of the concerns above. A good stretch at editing mindful of those concerns will need to elapse before I'd support.--Alf ^melmac 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose. Per Scarian above and Pascal.Tesson below. DiverseMentality 05:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Oppose - underestimates the size of the BLP issue, lacks calmness, too many outbursts, as listed in many of the opposes above GTD 10:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose per Pastor theo. Ikip (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC) On second thought, don't know candiate well enough to vote either way. Ikip (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

41. Oppose - Ironholds is a great content editor, one who's tireless contributions have left the project with lots of good content (as outlined by Daniel's nomination), something everyone should emulate. That said, I do not feel he has the temperament required of the tools and the diffs cited above make me feel that there is a potential for more harm than good should we grant him those tools. Also the number of RfAs in such a short period of time gives me the impression of a editor whom is unwilling to take the communities constructive criticism and improve upon it, something that all administrators must be willing and able to do. Tiptoety ^talk 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Strong Oppose. User seems too "topsy-turvy". I get the impression that the stresses of adminship would be too much for them to be an effective addition to the administrative team. Furthermore, their answers to the questions and general demeanor concern me - I think we'd end up worse off, I'm afraid, if the user were to gain adminship. I probably shouldn't add this, but I see the user being the type who'd end up at arbitration being remedied and slapped on the wrist a lot. And that's not to mention the apparent ageism - "Just like under-age users, a few bad apples" being an example from the RFA answers. Esteffect (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Esteffect (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm adding this diff to my reasoning for opposing, and changing back to a strong oppose. Esteffect (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

    I am not one of the older editors here, and I have interacted with Ironholds on both collaborative and friendly terms. I have never, ever, found him to be ageist, and still don't see how he is ageist for that comment - it is perfectly true. A few younger users here (at one point in my time here I would put myself in the 'bad apples' category) are indeed describable as such. His answer was indicative to me that he was indeed the complete opposite of ageist. "[A] few bad apples taint the entire recall system" says to me that he was saying that a lot of people are ageist due to the actions of a select few younger editors, and that, I can imagine, is probably true. I don't see how you have reached your conclusion. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think you (Etseffect) may have misunderstood the candidate. My reading of his 'bad apples' statement is that, just as a few bad young editors should not tarnish all young editors, a few rfa recall bad apples shouldn't taint the recall process. If I understood his intent correctly, he is arguing the exact opposite of ageism (that there are bad apples everywhere, whether it be young editors or admins not following the recall process, and those bad apples shouldn't be used as the basis for a stereotype). --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

    I see the point being made better now, but I'm still opposed for the other reasons. Esteffect (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

43. Oppose Mostly in two areas. The prods really bother me, I'm always worried about knee-jerk deletions. Deletions shouldn't be the first oprion when coming across an article you're concerned about. Secondly, the temperment issue is a real one. The comment about caps, sarcastic and slappy comments to a long term productive editor show poor judgement and we have enough of that as it is. There's other good reasons to oppose but they've been covered. RxS (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Strong oppose Open to recall and wants to be an admin much too badly (5th RfA in a little over a year). Past experiences with such candidates have not been good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Switch to oppose. If this is the kind of thing you feel is okay to say when you're under scrutiny at RFA, I shudder to think what you'd say if you actually got the mop. That, plus the biting newbies linked in my previous support, brings the phrase "tempermentally unsuited" to mind. Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

    See my edit above. Ironholds (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

46. Oppose—Conduct towards other users is a bit too disrespectful.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose I'm sorry, but comments like this followed by this compel me to withdraw my support. I like you Ironholds, and admire your candor, but an administrator must have the ability to use diplomacy and display a degree of tactfulness in their posts. 1.)As not all users have the ability or desire to use IRC, perceptions of another editor in IRC should not be brought to WP. 2.) The choice to make such comments on the actual RfA talk page, while your RfA is ongoing, indicates a lack of judgment. Since there are times that an administrator must show a degree of restraint in delicate situations, and you've chosen this particular time to make comments like this, I'm now of the opinion that you need a little more "wiki-seasoning" if you're wanting to wield the admin. mop. I don't make this switch from support lightly, and I slept on the matter prior to actually making my changes. While one might contest that these are not direct "Ad hominem" attacks, they are thinly veiled implications about an editor; and I just don't find that acceptable in an "Administrator" that I want to support. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 16:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose (switched from neutral) I stand by what I said in the neutral section. But two other things really bother me. First, Ironholds' attitude during this RfA is a cause for concern. A few diffs are given above but these two [4][5] stand out as uselessly snarky. (And it reminded me of this unnecessary message to an RfA candidate he had opposed) My second concern is that, from what I can gather, Ironholds is an IRC regular and I've seen too many incidents resulting from admins making decisions on IRC. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
49. I agree with what Pascal said both up above and below. And no, I don't need any other reason for that to oppose, despite the badgering the opposition is receiving. Aggression is not a mark of character; it will get you killed. Keegan^talk 19:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose. I do not feel confident that this user has the necessary calm demeanor a good administratorship requires. henrik•talk 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Oppose Per Scarian, Rjd, Hiberniantears, and many of the comments about temperament. From what I can see, just too much of those comments made for me to be comfortable. Those comments only confirm my initial assessment of the user from interaction on IRC, and while IRC is not wikipedia, my interactions with editors there helps to form my opinions of them. Nice person, but just doesn't strike me as admin material in the overall. --Neskaya _talk 21:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Oppose. Though I do think that Ironholds has the experience and skills beneficial to an admin candidate, as well as the fact that I appreciate his persistance in RfAs, I unfortunately must oppose. I share the sentiments of many of the above when I express my alarm at the many examples of Ironholds' persistant berating of people with whom he differs (as seen from the examples above). There are far more constructive ways to respond. For now and previously, his tone and temperment seem unbecoming of someone entrusted to wield the mop. These negatives unfortunately eclipse the positives, and therefore I have to oppose. Valley2city^‽ 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Oppose - while I appreciate Ironhold's extensive contributions to Wikipedia, most of which have been very positive, I'm simply not convinced he has the right character to be an admin. Some people do, some people don't, and what I've read on this RFA suggests he's one of the latter. I also have concerns about his judgement when it comes to notability (see links in the 'Neutral' section below). Robofish (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Oppose - I've watched this fairly closely and was undecided at first, but comments like this made during an RfA are concerning enough that I will have to oppose. Regardless of your history with or opinion of an editor or their comments, that is not the kind of statementthat is likely to help in any situation. Sorry. Camw (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Oppose - Comments such as this (just a few hours ago) concern me. Regardless of what preceded that comment, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little more control from an admin. This, as well as the diffs cited above, seems to indicate a continuing problem with temperament under pressure which should be rectified as soon as possible. Apterygial 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Ironholds does a lot of work on the wiki, but Scarian does bring some concerns diffs to light, I'm still thinking on this one. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral I'd rather not oppose because I've always been vocal about not holding grudges at RfA and I know that part of my reservations stem from one particular bad experience. Nevertheless, I have serious doubts about Ironholds' judgement and so I'll provide the diffs and let others make up their mind.

   • Ironholds is very active in RfAs and I've often found him unnecessarily aggressive and admin-quizz oriented (e.g. caring about the "ban vs. block" test [6], or insisting that candidates need to know everything [7])
   • The incident I was involved in goes back to the RfA of Itsmejudith. It's worth noting that Ironholds opposed this RfA in large part because of the nominator's attitude rather than the candidate's [8]. The RfA was closely contested so I decided to contact the people who had given "neutral" opinions and ask to revisit the RfA and, so I was hoping, make it more clear-cut. I sent an honest thank you note to Wehwalt who misunderstood its intention. Ironholds (among others) threw AGF out of the window and accused me of canvassing, said he was trying hard to not be scandalized, hinted that I was coordinating this off-wiki [9] [10] [11]. When I tried to defend myself, he faulted me for being exasperated [12].
   • Now the great irony of this is that this RfA coincided with the infamous third RfA of Ecoleetage. Eco received an enthusiastic nomination from Ironholds [13]. Despite well-documented serious incidents of incivility in Eco's past, Ironholds declared that he'd "never met an editor as polite as he is, regardless of who he is talking to and his previous contact with them". Eco retired a few days later after a very bad off-wiki stalking incident. It's ironic that Ironholds, while denouncing Kingturtle's "flippant attitude" in Itsmejudith's RfA, was not so good at keeping his cool when people opposed his candidate [14].
   • I've also looked at his recent work (i.e. last 24 hours) with PROD tags and I see ominous signs of bad judgement. An article about a painter who happens to be Robert De Niro's mother got tagged with "Notability is not genetically inherited" [15]. Of course, it's an absurd rationale genetically speaking but more worrisome is the fact that the most basic Google search demonstrates notability and then some. Two other tags were also clearly inappropriate: this one was quickly reverted [16] and this one was put in place despite the fact that a previous prod tag had been contested a month earlier [17]. Even this last one is probably over-aggressive [18]. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Just a pointer; the diff you provide about me claiming "admins need to know everything" starts "Admin candidates are not expected to have complete knowledge of every wiki-policy". My comment on the "Block v. Ban" test was just a statement about how I see it; you will notice that at no point did I go "OPPOSE per answer to question I disagree with". Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   In addition I didn't "fault you for being exasperated"; I faulted you for saying I was "outraged" (your words, not mine, I kept a level head) and accusing me of assuming bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   I guess it's easier to keep a level head when you're making unfounded accusations than when you're defending against them. In any case, people can read and make up their mind. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Whatever interactions I've had with him off-wiki have been good, and similar to MBisanz comment, he does a lot for the wiki. But, the concerns raised in the oppose section make me pause. Still thinking on this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Per MBisanz. Helps out a lot but temperament is important. -- Avi (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral from oppose. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral I have a gut feel that making too many campaign promises in the area of admin recall does make one more timid where some derring-do may be required. Again, not all admins need to be the sort who stick their noses in where they're likely to get punched, but I am left with a lingering concern that this admin has promised more than most in the recall arena. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. There are some good and some bad things about Ironholds. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral Stifle, you worded this exactly as I was about to. hmwithτ 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Flippy posts by an admin can stir up kilobytes of needless kerfuffle. A semi-retirement only a few days before this RfA makes me wonder how much admin tasks would be swayed by mood. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
9. I can't decide either way. As an administrator, you would be representing the entire project and your behavior would affect the project as a whole. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral. I've supported you each time, but this time the issues brought up from the opposition are very valid points. I really like you, but I'm afraid not this time. bibliomaniac15 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral Great contributions and reasons for concern are roughly equal so I will camp neutral on this one, like I did on the last. I hope you will be able to curb your temper so I can support your next request if this fails. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Both sides have good arguments. I can't oppose. Neutral. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
13. I've had some very good interactions with this user, but the oppose comments indicate that these may not have been the norm. I'll go with neutral. DS (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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