Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4

Ironholds

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (11/1/1); Scheduled to end 04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Ironholds (talk · contribs) – Ironholds is an exceptional editor who has been with the project since 2006[1][2]. With just about 46,000 edits (about 10,000 of which are deleted as a result of his NPP work), it is clear that Ironholds is a dedicated member of the project who cares for it deeply. Although he has always prioritized his university work above Wikipedia, Ironholds has maintained an incredible level editing, with anywhere from a thousand to two and a half thousand edits per month (most of which are non-automated).

Ironholds is primarily a content contributor. He has created over 500 pages, over 122 of which have been listed at Did You Know? on the main page. His work at the DYK submissions page indicates that he would likely be active there as an administrator. However, I would say that some of Ironholds' greatest content work comes in the form of his good and featured credits, namely 4 featured articles, 13 good articles, and 13 featured lists.

Ironholds is also active on the maintenance side of the project as well. Ironholds has over 200 mostly correct edits to Usernames for administrator attention and over 150 edits to Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, what I was most impressed with was Ironholds' work that went into creating this situation at Special:NewPages. Ironholds patrolled over 25,000 pages to clear an enormous backlog that had just been barely kept manageable for many many months. Although he make a few mistakes when patrolling the backlog, the vast majority of his taggings were spot on. I believe that Ironholds knows the policies governing the use of the vast majority of sysop actions very well.

The big question is why now. Ironholds has had a number of RfAs in the past (though the last was over 9 months ago), more than most candidates have had. A few incidents have made him come across as a bitey, sarcastic, and uncivil editor. While these incidents can be troubling, Ironholds genuinely tries to avoid confrontation whenever possible. He is also able offer insightful comments to heated discussions and complex disputes.

I hope the community agrees with me when I say that Ironholds would be an excellent help to the project as an administrator. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 04:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2010 (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: Lots of areas really. CSD/PROD/AFD is the obvious one, but I'd also like to dedicate some time to DYK, since I've submitted enough articles there to be part of the problem :P. Other than that I'll be generally available for moves, history merges and the like as needed. I'm not going to suddenly get involved in the area of dispute resolution, as I feel that an administrator has no larger role there than a non-admin, apart from when handing out sanctions.

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

A: My contributions have been rather varied in nature, but I'll try and come up with something here. In terms of content work, my Featured Articles; the one I'm most proud of is Gray's Inn, since I feel I put the most work in. All my Good Articles as well (in here, my favorite is the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, yawn) and my Did You Knows, which overlap the G and FAs. Outside of content, my general CSD/AFD/PROD work and particularly this little baby, which I couldn't have done without other members of the community. I'm not a flawless CSD tagger, but I do get a hell of a lot more deleted than kept; 10,000 deleted contributions, as mentioned above.

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

A: I've been in conflicts, as my previous RfAs suggest; this is a recent one, based on this edit summary, which I found quite offensive. The dispute seems to have been adequately resolved, in that one of us has come around to the other's way of thinking (in this case, me - I accept I made a mistake). I quite like my actions [3], although that's a bit dated; a dispute at ANI and at risk of spilling into blocking territory. I kept in touch, and we worked on several bits and bobs together. With future conflicts (and previous ones) I try to deal with it through either a) reasoned argument or b) when that doesn't work, simply walking away.

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

Support

1. Strong support as nominator. NW (Talk) 04:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support For being blatantly awesome... (and qualified). Clearing the New Pages backlog a few days ago was quite a feat, and quite appreciated by fellow New Page Patrollers.  IShadowed  ✰  04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support This guy's so incompetent he couldn't get laid at a frat party in a whorehouse. Luckily, he's running for admin instead. Should be exemplary. Bullzeye ^contribs 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   I second that.  IShadowed  ✰  05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

4. If only for clearing the NPP backlog alone. The perfect admin candidate with everything else on top of that. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
5. The amount of RfA's is concerning, but since the first 2 listed were SNOW closures, and since it's been so long since your last one, I can't find any other concerns. The NPP backlog clearing was especially impressive, and clearly shows a need for the tools. The Thing _{Happy New Year!} 04:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
6. If I recall correctly, there were temperament concerns before - I could be wrong, though, and I might be mixing Ironholds up with somebody else. Unless something very convincing comes up in the oppose column, I'm supporting this editor. We need more admins, and Ironholds has been here long enough and has a wide enough breadth of experience to know how things are done. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Ironholds has demonstrated the highest levels of competence and trustworthiness and I am sure that he would make an excellent admin. Triplestop x3 05:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Has clue, is experienced, and will not blow up any whales. Sounds fine to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Experienced and certainly is a net positive.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 05:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support – Ironholds' content contributions are top notch. He also does a lot of quality work in the area of BLP. He’s got a strong grasp on policy and experience across the board. His work in various admin areas displays competence, and his dedication to the project is indisputable. His sense of humor is sometimes lost on people, but I believe he'll make a fine admin. As for the situation Caspian blue mentioned in his oppose, having seen all the logs and heard from all involved at the time, I don't see how any informed person can consider Ironholds to have blackmailed Law. That's utterly ridiculous. Boys will be boys, and it was off-wiki activity. Lara ☁ 05:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Your view is your view which assessment looks "ridiculous" in my view though.--Caspian blue 05:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    I have no idea what you just said. Lara ☁ 05:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Caspian, you seriously made me lol. Thank you for that. Do you offer a free translation service, or does one have to pay someone who speaks English? Bullzeye ^contribs 05:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Although I highly respect the nominating admin (I really do), I have to oppose the candidate strongly as possible. I've expected Ironholds would run for adminship again some after people may forget about the User:Law/User:The_undertow incident. I felt absurd at that time for the fact that he was not a subject of any single warning or admonishment given for his backchannelling and manipulating to get favorable result for his POV via IRC and retaliation. While User:Daniel who was equally in charge of leading the disgraceful incident and other involved people got the consequence, he was not. Moreover, he has failed to prove that he abides by the civility policy. I don't see why we need to add a potential admin to abuse the admin tool with the disgraceful demeanor.--Caspian blue 04:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not to badger, but could you please explain what you mean by " backchannelling and manipulating to get favorable result for his POV via IRC and retaliation"? I was not attempting to blackmail Law, something that Daniel, the Arbitration Committee and the logs can back up. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, you're the one in the IRC, so I don't know why you are saying you don't have that experience. You asked Law to move some article but he refused, you attacked him threatened him. The IRC log and WR tells the story.--Caspian blue 05:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   I did not threaten him based on the article move. You have not seen the IRC log, and Wikipedia Review is hardly a reputable place to be basing events on. Would you be happier if I got somebody who had seen the logs to state, vociferously, that those were not my actions? Ironholds (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Even if we put aside the WR, people in good standing who observed you and the rest in IRC said onwiki that you did the totally inappropriate behaviors with vulgar language for the initial feud over the title move. And why do you think Daniel left a message to you "epic win" and got blocked? Anyway, I opposed you last time for your too eagerness to get the tool and incivility, so you can not change my mind unless you prove strong evidence that you're not.--Caspian blue 05:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   You've now gone from blackmail and incivility to on- and off-wiki incivility, the latter of which is irrelevant anyway. In addition, surely as the person making the accusation that I'm " too [eager] to get the tool and [incivil]" on-wiki, it's your responsibility to provide evidence? Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   That is very much relevant since admins should hold a higher moral standard, which you have failed to present. I recommend you to re-read my above comment; I opposed you last time for Your past RFA pages tell enough about your "eagerness and incivility.--Caspian blue 05:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Generally a good user, but still has some issues with civility and temperament. Sorry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)