User talk:Ironholds

Get involved in the Article incubation trial!

Name	Location	Creator	Mentor	Comments
Papercanvas's Ronnie Lupe Page Draft	User:Papercanvas/Sandbox	User:Papercanvas	ϢereSpielChequers	userfied 20:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Getlenses.co.uk	Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Getlenses.co.uk	AUser:Linz131313	Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)	WP:SPAM problems
Kaattu Chempakam	Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kaattu Chempakam	User:Mohind vm	Yes Michael? •Talk 12:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)	Article incubated. Sadly, creator does not have email enabled. Noticed that only after I incubated it.
Intimate relationship skills	2nd Afc submission - Intimate Relationship Skills	Geoffjw1978 (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)	The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)	Feedback solicited to help in afc process
Substation earth fault locator	Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Substation earth fault locator	User:Manivellan	Psu256 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)	WP:ORIGINAL problems
Arcaderush	Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arcaderush	User:Rotem gavish	- Philippe 09:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)	needs sources
Capricorn FM	Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Capricorn FM	User:Meli Ncube	Otelemuyen(talk) 22:58 10 April 2011	awaiting initial assessment
Pheddiphella	Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Andrea Monica Martin (Musician)	User:Pheddiphella		Need Access for Picture and additional information

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Vandalism

This user 71.42.191.58 is vandalizing again. He almost totally blanked the pizza hut page a few days ago The snare (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; now warned. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you could check that page again, if you get a chance, there's a been a few vandals in the last week, and perhaps some of them are sock puppets of him/her too (they only have IP addresses) The snare (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone else managed to get them. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see whoever it is just uses another IP every time they get warned, or blocked. They could be going through a proxy too- which might make them hard to catch The snare (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

17th Amendment

Interesting thing to watch that probably won't be reflected in the sources yet about the 17th Amendment: Quinn v. Judge, which is at the SCOTUS now[1] (SCOTUSblog). NW (Talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted; thanks kindly! Ironholds (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Whistleblower page

Hello Ironhold, Please help me understand something about this page I was told and led to believe that there is no self promotion at Wikipedia and I see that at the top of the Whistleblower page there is a link to an outside story about a movie is that not self promoting a movie using a Wikipedia site about a legitimate subject matter. One would think that if reference material is needed Wikipedia would use their own sit "List Of Major Whistleblowers" site instead of an out side self promoting site. The List Of Major Whistleblowers is a very wide ranged view and and look at some of the past and present Whistleblowers. Thank you for your ear and patience.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay... could you provide links and rephrase that in English? Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion

Hi Ironholds. You co-authored the article While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. May I please ask you to state your opinion about re-write made by user:Gatoclass here? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the rewrite far improves it, although he needs to provide a source for the "racism" point. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of boyzone back again tour

Why the hell have you deleted the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudialive (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it was created by a sockpuppet. Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 03:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Ironholds!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted.

First off, I apologize for the following info-dump. If you're wondering how to get started or are wondering what's going on, please contact me.

If you haven't already done so, take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Guidelines

The "mentorship process" section lays out approximately what will be expected of you as a mentor. If you'd like, you can also volunteer to be the coordinating online ambassador for a class or two.

Please add yourself to the top of the list of available mentors, and note the number of students you think you'd like to mentor next term (it doesn't have to be a final answer, this is just to help with matching students and mentors once the students start getting active) and if you'd like to take on the coordination role for any classes note that as well: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors (Don't add yourself to the lower "Additional online ambassadors section; that's for ambassadors-in-training and ambassadors who are already mentoring all the the students they want to take on.)

To coordinate between Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors, we've been using a Google Group as a mailing list. It's not required, but almost all the ambassadors are on it. Would you like me to subscribe you? Email me with your email address if so.

You can catch with what's been going on so far with the first major message this term, with details about what the group should and shouldn't be used for: Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors#Information_for_Ambassadors_about_January_-_May_2011_term

You can also check out the first two ambassador newsletters, which have more detail about what's going on right now. You'll get future editions delivered to your talk page.

If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ready to take the plunge

Hey Ironholds! I just finished polishing Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez after a second Peer Review. I would like to move it to the Featured Article process. Is there anything you could advice for either a) this process or b) final ways to improve the article before nomination? Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice! I note the references section shows only four journal articles - is that all I provided? Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just those four. Lord Roem (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie-dokes! I'll try to find more. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

WMF report test

Welcome!

Hello, Ironholds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Lead length

Hey mate, I just happened to stumble upon the GA nomination for Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, and I noticed that one of your comments was that "Lead sections should normally have a maximum of 3 sections". Assuming that the second "sections" actually means "paragraphs", I just wanted to point out that WP:LEAD actually suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs, and that there are indeed a number of GAs and FAs with this many paragraphs in the lead. The nom passed without incident, so I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I thought I would let you know in case it comes up in future reviews. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fair play! When did that change? I hate policy alterations. I keep having to come back and review them and stuff. Things should just stay the same as they did when I was a lad! </oldman> Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fear not, old man. It was probably just a glitch in the matrix. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Spooky; I was watching that film earlier today! It's interesting to note how many subtleties you spot the second time through. Ironholds (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC request

Hey Ironholds, if you're willing, would you be able to take a look at Eastbourne manslaughter? It's currently at FAC, and one of the other reviewers suggested it might benefit from review by someone knowledgeable about such topics. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now commented. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Phearson's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JaGa

Tell 'em how you really feel, Ironholds! Thanks, by the way, for stating it, though you might get slammed for it, and for reiterating that while content creation is very important, it's not the only thing one should get judged on. That a candidate would have to provide such a heap of evidence, when RfA is already a pretty intensive and laborious enterprise, is pushing it too far. Even Keepscase's questions are more reasonable than that one. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "not calling a spade a spade" is the one thing I could never be accused of :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I know. Have a good weekend, Drmies (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Automating submissions for autopatrol right

I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. Since you have been helping review candidates, I thought you may want to comment on if/how we should do this. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

question

Hi Ironholds, Let's say I'd like to use a book as a source.This book quotes another book. What is the proper way to handle such sources? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Another example of WP:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER. Bencherlite^Talk 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol. I just had to create that! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wondered who'd take the bait... as ever, HJM does not disappoint! Bencherlite^Talk 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikitrain?

You will be pleased to see that I have added your name to the list of attendees at Derby based on your early commitment. Yes I have not changed the date:-) Keen to get more on the London train and wondered if yoy might lead the idea of a wikitrain as you were a leading player in the Gdansk one. (Good to see you are frequently a trend setter!) I know that the BM hope to send a candidate so you will not be the only one, but good to get a carriage full. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but at this point I'm not sure whether I'll be going - work commitments, see. If work is okay with it (and I'll find out within the next week or so) I'll take a further look. Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads Up

You have been cited Here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Restart of deleted talk pageRestart of deleted talk pages

Hi Ironholds! I'm just about to restart a talk page I've restarted a few talk pages you deleted about a month and a half ago:

• Talk:Orange County Outlaws
• Talk:Dallas Dragons
• Talk:Denver Wolverines
• Talk:Seattle Force

This would seem to me to be pretty uncontentious; the problem will be with the article itself articles themselves, of course. You might want to have a look at them. Oo-roo! --Shirt58 (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC), last updated --Shirt58 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Help

Thanks for volunteering to help with our Environmental Law Course. We really appreciate your input! Jodi.elizabeth (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm a law student - I'd feel bad not doing it! ;p. Just let me know when you need me. Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am a student in Env Law, and I am new in Wiki. Could you please, give me some tips that how can I start? thanks, mehrshad.user:mehrshad006 —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 3, 21 March 2011 This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail. Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active. Education portal in progress - Wikimedia staff have started work on an outreach portal for information about teaching with and about Wikipedia. Please help develop it! Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.) Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee. Editing Friday returns - This Friday, join fellow ambassadors and others real-time collaboration on Wainwright Building.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, I'm on holiday! Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Shame! I'm hoping to start holding regular wikimeets in Manchester - possibly on the last sunday of every month (to complement the London wikimeets on the 2nd sunday of every month) - so hope you can make a future one. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope I can. Anything new on nomination forms for the board, btw? Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball Good Article

If you could swing by Talk:Netball and Talk:Netball/GA1, I'm getting rather frustrated. The good article review dates to March 5 and it keeps getting longer and longer, with out any end in sight. We get conflicting advice. (Remove red links. Put them back in. No, changed my mind. Put them back in. Use consensus imperial. Oh? That's not consensus, well do all this other measurement related stuff as I don't get my way there.) I'm really frustrated and I don't feel like we're making progress. --LauraHale (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just putting in a word to second this request. The GA review is an absolute mess and could really use some competent guidance and/or advice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

George Odlum

Hi, I have reviewed George Odlum and placed it on hold for up to seven days with several concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:George Odlum/GA1. Canadian Paul 05:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GNAA

All I can say is, I hope you're proud of yourself. You've opened up yet another enormous can of worms on the Wikipedia community. It was AFD'd, deleted, DRV'd and we said NO to recreation, deletion endorsed. What you've done goes beyond crazy. I swear this article WILL be deleted one day, and if I ever get the chance to be the one to do it, I'll put so much damn salt on it, I'll dehydrate it to a crisp. BarkingFish 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Because? Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change, BarkingFish. In this case, it appears to have done, because the DRV participants were really quite astoundingly in agreement about overturning the deletion. I'm not sure what you'd like Ironholds to have done - close the DRV in defiance of consensus, and thus betray the role of admin as impartial evaluator of consensus in deletion discussions? Would you prefer to have admins make closes based on whether they think an article is controversial, rather than on whether a discussion has established that the article in question meets inclusion criteria? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

1 - He's not impartial since he already admitted being partially involved in getting that DRV listed, so technically as he has discussions surrounding it, with LiteralKa, he shouldn't have taken part in the close of the DRV. He is not an uninvolved admin.

2 - He's made it clear that we can't use WP:DENY on an article like this - Essay or not, its words are most true... "Motivations for vandalism (as distinguished from abuse like harassment and edit warring) range from a desire for recognition and infamy,[1][2] to an aspiration to frustrate the Wikipedia project and community. Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. This is particularly true for prolific vandals, who were (prior to this essay) immortalised by Wikipedia pages, meticulously catalogued by category pages, dedicated specific templates, and who thereby become a notable part of wiki culture."

By recreating this article, we have once again, given the GNAA the "fame" and "reinforcement" they clearly don't fucking deserve. Trust me. This article will fall, and I will make damn sure of that. You're both responsible for this, the last DRV should have been the end of it. You had no flaming need to bring it up again. What's the point of a process that says "get rid of it" if someone else can just come along and flick it on its back? BarkingFish 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: I don't think the consensus would have changed if people involved in the last DRV would have been made aware that another one was on the go. BarkingFish 19:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

With as many AFDs and DVRs as this article has had notifying every one would be a monumental task to notify everyone. You could have done it yourself if you felt so strongly about it The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know it was happening, ResidentAnthropologist. If I did, I'd have told everyone involved, and hope they'd have got involved again. Enough is enough. BarkingFish 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Given your off-site involvement and numerous discussions with previous nominator LiteralKa and current nominator Fluffernutter, and me advising you shortly after the DRV started that I felt you were insufficiently uninvolved to act as a neutral admin in closing this particular DRV (I know what at least one other admin have also indicated that they felt the matter better handled by someone else), I am saddened to learn that you chose to disregard that advice and went ahead regardless. It speaks of a lack of judgment about when it is proper to recuse, and certainly brings the resulting close into question. henrik•talk 20:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's odd, I thought we established that I have spoken to Ironholds previously a whopping one time. LiteralKa (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds has the right to speak to whomever he likes, but an impartial, uninvolved sysop should be the one who closes the DRV. A judge should mingle with the jury. Ironholds has expressed his views before the DRV closed. Perhaps we could have another sysop reclose this DRV, so we don't have to waste our another week with a new argumentative DRV concerning the legitimacy of this closure. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• When and where did I express these views? I deliberately kept out of it. Ironholds (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, so I hope you can excuse me for being wrong. I heard all of this second-hand. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm aware, the first comments I made about the last DRV were in my closing statement - that is, the first comments in any way relating to which direction it should be closed. Word of advice; stating that I had expressed my views before the DRV closed, that I am not impartial and that "a judge should not mingle with the jury" is relatively strong language. You should perhaps base it on more than something somebody else told you they had heard, and my active and repeated pointing out that I have deliberately not associated myself with the "jury" since the "case" began. If you have any reason to suggest that a different conclusion was reachable please, be my guest. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Understood. I just like using hyperboles and analogies. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes; the crucial thing about hyperbole is that it's hyperbolic. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• A quick note; if you have come here to complain, pause. Breathe. Wait. Go look at the DRV. Read what people have said, read my close in full - not just the restore, the whole close. Done? Right, now come back and tell me I could've closed it differently. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know about you personally, Ironholds, but a different conclusion was reachable. This was a case of "keep listing until it gets restored", and—as was statistically certain given enough relistings—eventually the "restore" votes showed up in sufficient numbers to carry the day, provided you isolate DRV#11 from the previous ten DRVs and 19 AFDs. There's a potentially a question to be raised about whether you were right to disregard the previous consensus in closing this one. It's admittedly not an easy call and it reflects the zero sum game of trying to decide one way or the other in a discussion where there's fundamentally no consensus across the encyclopaedia, so I won't personally bring a challenge against it in one of the venues that can overturn a DRV, but I also think it's disingenuous to claim that this was the only permissible conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, since when have previous DRVs and AfDs been taken into account when reaching a consensus on what the particular group of people at the particular DRV think? Decisions are made by those who turn up. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Decisions are also better if previously involved participants (hint) actually know that something is happening. We're not fucking psychic. BarkingFish 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You really gotta calm down man. LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You really gotta find something better to do than have your organisation give us grief when you've got what you wanted. You've got your article, you got your own way, I can't change that. God knows, I wish I could. BarkingFish 23:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you blathering about? Since when is GNAA "my organization"? LiteralKa (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are their spokesperson, right? Their P.R.O? So you effectively represent the public face of the GNAA. They may not be "your organization" in the way that you actually run them, but what you do publicly reflects on the GNAA as a whole. I accept that you've got what you wanted - I can't say I'm thrilled about it, because frankly I'm not. Another DRV within 4 weeks of the last one being shut simply shows how open the systems of Wikipedia are to abuse. Either way, what's done is done. For now. Until someone else opens another AFD and all this crap starts again. BarkingFish 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how I was in any way (a) expected to or (b) competent to notify previous participants to something when I deliberately avoided looking at it for the entire week it was running? Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You personally weren't. I've simply seen it done before, usually by the person posting or someone uninvolved. BarkingFish 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm - if participants' views at previous RFAs were taken into account at the (nth + 1) RFA, Ironholds would still be -sysop... probably for ever! Bencherlite^Talk 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• You should never have closed this one. There is no way you can be considered by all parties to be a neutral admin when you have been consorting off wiki with the proponents of undeleting it. Please void and allow an actually neutral admin to close this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "I didn't get what I wanted, so I'm gonna claim that he wasn't neutral and demand a redo." LiteralKa (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • LiteralKa, that's far from what Spartaz and other have said. Ironhold isn't an outsider to the dispute; you had his ear. I agree with the result of the DRV personally, but I can't agree with it professionally. Someone else should reclose the DRV so it won't continue to be contested in this fashion. Leaving the DRV as it is now is only going to provide fuel to further conflicts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Addendum: Allowing another sysop to reclose the DRV doesn't mean that the decision will be reversed (although there's a chance); it just means that there'll be fewer doubts about the closure. Remember that I was one of the users arguing in favor of allowing recreation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Yet the previous closing admin had been involved in prior GNAA/wiki discussions... As grandma sang: ~Will the circle be unbroken? by and by, lord, by and by...~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.129.222 (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2011 — 38.126.129.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
          • Spartaz also !voted in the 2006-11-28 DRV, closed the 2011-10-02 DRV, speedily closed the 2011-03-15 DRV DRV's, and blocked LiteralKa. Thanks for bringing this up. I haven't connected these events together until now. Nevertheless, please keep the following in mind: Spartaz didn't become a sysop until June 2007, the discussions Spartaz participated in are over four years old, and the GNAA / Goastse Security didn't become notable enough for inclusion until the Summer of 2010. The discussions of 2006 are completely different in nature from the discussions of 2010 / 2011. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Spartaz (and others), I'm not seeing anywhere where he's "consorted" or shown evidence of non-neutrality. Obviously if he was running around talking about how he wanted the article restored, that would be a problem, but all I'm able to find with regard to people's allegations of non-neutrality are some comments on LiteralKa's talk page where he said things like, "I think that the DRV was closed by an admin who left a short rationale that read more like bean-counting than thinking it through, and that having a debate closed by somebody who normally works well in contentious DRVs/AFDs such as myself might appease the "losing" side, whichever that side would be."

Is there somewhere that you can point to to show us where or how Ironholds stated an opinion on the issue other than the general sentiment that if a DRV opened he wanted the opportunity to sink his teeth into closing it? Or is your argument that having shown interest in closing the DRV is, in and of itself, a COI of some sort?

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I entirely disagree with your closure of the GNAA DRV, but you certainly deserve this for writing it and coming to a decision. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been quoted at WP:Requests for adminship/NickPenguin

I read your submission to JaGa's RfA and thought it was one of the best arguments I'd ever read. It was so good, in fact, that I quoted it in my entry in WP:Requests for adminship/NickPenguin. I hope you don't mind. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:New Pages and New Users

You may well know, but the guy you want in on this is Chzz (talk · contribs). He's spent so much time helping new users write great articles, and getting them involved in Wikipedia. I've done a lot of new page patrol in the past (but I hold up my hands as a "take out the trash" type when I was doing that) but this is something I'd like to support if possible. I just don't have the time for Wikipedia that I would like at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted; I shall poke him. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in some work that Snottywong and I have been doing over the last few weeks: User:Snottywong/Patrollers. The idea is to identify enthusiastic patrollers who may still be unsure of how to interpret WP:CSD and WP:NPP and offer them some help. --Kudpung (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! I'll poke Chzz, and thanks for all your hard work so far. Would you be interested in getting involved in what we're doing at the mo? I'll poke the ComDep with your project - they'll find it interesting. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The clearly named User:BackInDisguise

I see you blocked him/her; I shared the suspicion but thought what the heck, AGF and give it a good try to get across what the project is about. They seem to have a genuine misunderstanding about "provincial medical officer" as well as being obtuse about sources - I had a small hope I could get through to them and we'd wind up with another useful editor. They did find us one source on the lady. It is, however, disquieting that the lady herself has evidently objected that the article is unfair to her. See the message on the talk page, although she doesn't come off all that good by the end of it, we should cut her some slack as a BLP subject (as well as a physician and medical officer who had a distinguished career). I can't read Finnish - I should perhaps add a userbox for that like the one I have for Russian - or I'd have looked for some refs on her medical career and the impetus for her UFO writings myself. I was hoping our friend would buckle down and provide a few more. I hope I didn't do a bad thing not reporting them on the basis of my strong suspicion. --Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The greater problem is that he's an obvious sock of an IP currently on a month-long block - that's what the indef of the account was for. Doesn't look like there was any negative impact, so don't beat yourself up over it. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Accidental edit conflict fall out at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)?

Hey, was reading through Village pump by diffs, and I think that one of your edits accidentally deleted Jalexanders edits. I presume it was an edit conflict gone wrong. I'd restore it myself, but wanted to make sure that it wasn't intended. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, EC; he's now restored it. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to undelete & userfy Black Rock Ranger

Could you, as the acting admin of AfD/Black_Rock_Ranger, userfy the content of the deleted article Black Rock Ranger. My goal is to see if any of it can be reliably cited and salvaged into Burning Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePrefect (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Now done; see User:FuturePrefect/Black Rock Ranger. Ironholds (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Dank/RFA#What next

I'd really appreciate your legal opinion. (Then again, maybe your expertise comes from all those trips to RFA ...) - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Racepacket

User:Racepacket has been persistently harassing a new editor, User:LauraHale, the author of some articles on netball. He falsely accused her of plagiarism knowing that this was a serious charge to level at a PhD student. (See Talk:Netball/GA1) I have warned him to desist and told him what he was doing constituted harassment. In the (mistaken) belief that she was employed by he attempted to persuade her employer that she was guilty of misconduct. He was informed again that this constituted harassment. When she tried to withdraw one of her GA reviews he insisted on doing another GA review of her articles. poor He went on to attempt to question Insisting that he alone had the right to fail the article, he twice reverted the attempt until I reminded of the 3RR.

I have never had any conflict with Racepacket. The arguments about netball are with LauraHale. I have no opinion on issues. This brings us to the GAN of Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement, which I had taken solely in order to prevent him from taking. I took his claim that my six edits constituted involvement under advisement. I was hoping that he would take the hint and go away. While the page was being renamed by editor, Racepacket took advantage of a window of opportunity to create a new GAN page to quick fail it. One edit; create GAN page and fail it: Special:Undelete/Talk:Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement/GA2. There already was a active GAN and Racepacket had already contributed to it. He then added that review to his collection.[2]! At this point I suspended him for 48 hours. I felt that he had been given more than enough warnings by myself and others that this pattern of harassment was unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2

I have never encountered such a situation. I did seek advice from two other admins but they were too busy to assist. Was my decision to block acceptable? Can you give offer any advice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)