Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5

Ironholds

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (127/5/6); Scheduled to end 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Ironholds (talk · contribs) – I wish to nominate Ironholds to become an administrator on en.wikipedia. Over the last few years of editing having created 19 Featured Works - 6 of which have reached FA status, and in excess of 180 DYK's, he is an exceptionally hard working editor who has consistently continued to improve others work, whilst presenting a solid image of a Wikipedian who knows what to do to better himself and to help others too. In all of my interactions both on and off wiki, Ironholds has never failed to stand up and be counted, nor has he ever failed to respond to criticism - constructive or otherwise - of his work. Having him as an administrator to this project will only serve to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I trust that you will finally give him the chance to prove his skills in handling this and associated tasks. BarkingFish 22:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I appreciate that I've been given many chances to jump this hurdle, and fallen flat on my face each time; nevertheless, I feel I've grown and become a better editor since the last one, to degrees my mind previously wouldn't have thought of. Hopefully the community will get the same impression from my contributions, and from my answers to the questions. In my last RfAs, I failed because I was uncivil. I failed because I had a low signal-to-noise ratio in terms of CSD and AfD nominations. I've worked hard to remedy these problems, and I hope that the contributions I've drawn readers' attentions towards, as well as those sitting here, will show that clearly. Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Lots of areas. WP:CSD and WP:AFD have always been a focus for me, so I'll probably work there, mostly. My standards for articles there have waned and fluxed, recently; I've got a lot more "inclusionist" partly because I now have far more sources available (LexisNexis, yay) and therefore find it easier to justify articles. As a general rule, however, the general notability guideline applies as an iron rule. If an article meets those standards, I have to have a very good reason to support removing it. If it fails those standards, I have to have a very good reason to suggest or mandate its inclusion. Historically, I was probably considered a "deletionist" - I'm now probably a fully paid-up member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. So, I've suggested deleting articles, suggested keeping them, and sometimes actively helped save them. Another area I'm interested in is WP:DYK; I submit enough work there that it seems only fair I help transclude the accepted nominations. Obviously, doing such a thing is technically a bit tricky for a newcomer; I'll probably occupy my (early) time as an admin simply with CSD work so as to avoid screwing up the main page.

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

A: My main focus, and the area most people will have seen me in, I think, is content creation - particularly in relation to current English law, and English legal history. My best work on this front is hard to pick out, because (not to toot my own horn) I have written rather a large number of articles. I think the best piece of work is probably either my article on the Court of Chancery, an FA I brought up from almost nothing, and the article on Nicholas Fuller (lawyer), who, despite significant knock-on importance, has had very little written about him. In total, however, I currently have 6 FAs, 50 GAs, 183 DYKs and 13 Featured Lists; it's rather difficult to select my "best" work.

Deletion is the other place I work as an editor; in the last 4 months-ish (since the start of September) I've tagged 262 articles for deletion through the CSD process; 246 have been deleted or redirected, 14 saved in various forms (note: this is a rough count; my apologies if my maths is a tad off, but I'm working on a scan of my contribs). Most of the declined ones were, I feel, explainable; this was my bad; I didn’t realise there was a pre-vandalism version and saw it only as a horrendous BLP violation. I’m not quite sure what happened with this tag – the page history doesn’t show me editing it. Himalayan Blues Festival was certainly a problem at the time - [1] – I tagged it as spam, given the opening paragraph. Ada of Huntingdon was CSDd and then PRODed, both removed by the article creator; given increasing claims of importance, I let that pass, although the version I’d originally tagged had no claim to notability except through inheritance. Paul Gallez and Enrique de Gandia, in their initial forms, gave no claim to real notability and appeared to be a walled garden. Vinitha similarly gave no claim to notability when I tagged it. Marianne Greenwood was spamtastic at the time, as was this doozy and this; this is still the same, and should have been deleted, in my opinion. A couple of interesting cases are 1181 Syston Squadron ATC and Piglet (band). Neither contained any claim to notability; the former was improved while I wasn't paying attention and then, quite deservingly, had its tag removed, and the latter had additional sources provided by the creator, which I included. I think this shows a pretty good grasp of what is and is not acceptable through CSD. I've made some mistakes, but I don't think anybody is infallible, nor should they be expected to be. My record is similar through AfD; the only one I'd really like to explain is my PROD and then AfD of The Durham Proverbs. At the moment, it's a perfectly acceptable article. At the time, it was an OR-filled essay, and I stuck it up at AfD as such. I then went away from my computer for a day or so, came back and found massive improvements and a string of "keep" comments; I immediately withdrew the AfD. I'm as willing to admit mistakes as the next guy.

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: Well, yes. I've been on the wiki for four years-ish, now, and it's inevitable that users get in conflicts, even if they edit in areas as deserted as say, English law :p. Historically, conflicts with other users are what's caused my RfAs problems - I tend to be terse, or biting, and in some cases incivil. All of this gets interpreted as incivility (it took me a long time to learn the lesson "the internet does not conduct humour very well", and it isn't helped by my odd sense of humour, which although now toned down, occasionally springs up ("What implications did secret trusts have in the practical world?" "They kept a lot of lawyers in fresh cummerbunds"). One of the most consistent conflicts is with User:Wikidea. We're both editors with an interest and fascination in English law, but we differ on many points. He likes big quotations, I like small ones. He likes primary sources, I like secondary ones. He likes using OSCOLA, I like using my own, made-up style - that sort of thing. The opinions and styles have clashed on Pepper v Hart, Rylands v Fletcher, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, all over the place, and initially, I met it with resentment, passive-aggressiveness, anger, the whole kit and kaboodle. Over time I've learnt the important lessons; that it is better to discuss on talkpages than in edit notices, that the other person being snide does not mean you need to be, and that the other person not being snide means you gain no points by upping the ante. Our most recent crossing of paths (on Slade's Case) was far less divisive and more reasonable. So the answer to the "How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?" is "discuss." Discuss calmly and reasonably. Do not use harsh language, do not use pleasant language in a harsh way, and don't revert unless there is something cataclysmically wrong with letting the edit stay until discussion concludes.

Additional optional question from The Utahraptor

4. What do you think of the current RfA process? Do you think it should be changed? Why or why not?

A: This is an interesting one. I used to go "RfA is broken, we must fix it", but such proposals have inherent problems. Discussions on RfA reform at the talkpage invariably follow the same pattern; 70 percent agree it's broken, 30 percent think it isn't. The 70 percent discuss ways to fix it, and while lots of people agree it doesn't work, not enough agree on any one fix for anything to be passed; it's proof that consensus has its breaking points (or, that consensus works, depending on your opinion). These days, I don't think RfA is particularly broken, or, at least, I think it's like democracy; all the alternatives are more broken. The big issue isn't necessarily with the process, so much as the contributors to that process, in that people who edit around RfAs tend not to be entirely representative of the wiki, and are (at best) a small proportion of it. The thing I really support (and will throw myself behind once I finish my dissertation) is making RfA more accessible, more inclusive, and more representative of the wiki, through wider advertising. There's no reason why we couldn't shove a notice on WP:AN, or keep the RfA tallybox I have on my talkpage at the top of the village pump or community portal. A greater awareness of and participation in RfA is likely to remedy a large number of the problems surrounding the process, because a wider and more representative pool will comment on RfAs, and more people will become familiar with the process, increasing the potential nominees. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from N5iln

5. Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to block an editor who has either only received one warning, or no warnings at all?

A: I tend to be lenient in some ways and strict in others - I sometimes miss out the level 3 warning, for example, because I feel anyone who doesn't get it after 1, 2 and 4 is unlikely to - and so I can't really think of a situation in which no warnings would be appropriate, except in username blocks (offensive, disruptive, spamvertisement), really, clearly obvious sockpuppets of banned users, or where the editor has turned into a powerhouse of vandalism. Blocks after one warning... if we're talking indefinite, BLP vandalism or the creation of attack pages. That's a one-strike situation. Limited, it would be acceptable in situations where there is edit-warring, the violation of community- or arbcom-imposed sanctions the editor was well aware of, or other situations in which the user Should Have Known Better. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from BrownHairedGirl

6. You have had half-a-dozen previous unsuccessful nominations. This time around, there is initial agreement that you have addressed all the issues which caused the previous noms to fail. However, per your response to question 5 about warnings, I wonder whether a would-be admin who has had such apparent difficulty in reaching an acceptable standard may have difficulty in maintaining it in future, since you apparently didn't "get it" after RFAs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. How can you dissuade me from my fear that while you have successfully learnt and adopt the approach sought, this may just have been been training to overcome problems of temperament which may cause other problems in future?

A: My internal lawyer wishes to point out that there have been 6, not 5, even thought it sorta hurts my case. I'm going to resist the urge to launch into a long schpiel about why I had not changed when initially asked to (it's both moot and not what the question calls for). The problem was never one of temperament, simply of how I chose to display it. Many of the Wikipedians who know me in real life can testify that I am generally kind, but rather acerbic about it, and it's this caustic element which has caused such a problem on Wikipedia. I haven't particularly changed temperament or personality, because that always contained the ability to be nice, and civil, and thoughtful; I've simply tried to bring that to the fore. The real answer is I can't promise I'll never be rude, or uncivil, or needlessly twee in the future, because nobody can promise that. What I can promise is that if that part of me comes out, I'll avoid Wikipedia until it subsides. And if I fail to do so, I can see (at the last count) 36 people who will be calling for my head, me included. I apologise for the long, heartstring-tugging work of oratory you just had to wade through :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK)

7. You are scrolling through your watchlist to see if there is anything important you need to do before you leave for the night. You happen to see that an administrator posted on the talk page of a new editor that you had recently welcomed, and helped out. The edit summary the administrator used, Why was this kid unblocked, draws your attention so you decide to check it out. You see that the administrator has re-blocked the new user after he was unblocked (the block was for consistent edit warring), the administrator thinks that the user should undergo the entire one month block. The user does not understand what he/she has done wrong, and no one bothered to fully explain why this user was blocked three times before (for edit warring). When the user was unblocked the admin who unblocked the user explained what had been done wrong, and the user acknowledged it, and apologized, but the re-blocking admin did not agree with the unblock. What would you do/how would you act, both to the user, and to the administrator who re-blocked the user.

A: My first action would be to talk to the administrator in question, and ask him how he reached the conclusion he did; there may be extraneous circumstances I'm unaware of. At the same time (or near enough) I'd drop the user a note to say that I was looking into it, and he should keep calm - people can sometimes react to "unjustified" blocks with a torrent of abuse which tends not to help their case. Obviously, at this point, my actions depend on those of the blocking admin. If he is fine with an unblock, I unblock, and let the user know this (and also affirm that what he did was wrong). If he is not fine with an unblock and has a reason I agree with, I agree, let it pass, and tell the user that he is to remain blocked and why, also asking that he not post excess unblock requests, sockpuppet, violate WP:NPA or any of the other things that could extend his block. If the blocking administrator maintains that the block is a good idea for reasons I cannot accept, I take it to WP:ANI for a wider look at it. In any of the situations, I give him a slap on the wrist for referring to the editor as a "kid" in the summary. Block summaries should show the reason for the block, and not involve inappropriate personal comments. The internet is rather a sewer in some places, and identifying an editor's young age is not beneficial to the project, and certainly not beneficial to the "kid" in question.

In none of the cases would I attempt an unblock myself without the blocking administrator's acceptance. There was an unblock, followed by a block - any further action constitutes wheel-warring, and is inappropriate. The best course of action is instead to take it to somewhere with a wider audience, get their consensus to overrule the admin, and allow a third party to make the necessary changes. Ironholds (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Shawn in Montreal

8. I had opposed you last time around because I felt you were too overzealous and a little unclear on CSD criteria. Now, I see that you're a lawyer, so I know that words and logic are your business. So I want to return again to the Piglet (band) CSD for a moment. You state above that there was no claim of notability when you tagged it. But as you can see here just before you tagged it the article did expressly state that the band, while short-lived "are said to have been an influence on the Chicago math rock-scene." I'm just interested in your thought process: is it because you felt that statement was so weakly worded, or that the "Chicago math rock-scene" wasn't necessary notable?

A: The latter. We have no article on the subject, google pulled up no reliable source or general coverage of such a scene - it smacked very strongly of something of local interest. The Chicago math-rock scene could have been an incredibly important area, where Piglet helped a generation of bands through their latent years and created a new genre of music, re-defining math rock a la Velvet Underground. But there was no evidence of this. No suggestion that that was the case. No reason to consider it anything more than, at best, something of only local importance, or at worse, hyperbole. Having said that, once evidence of notability was provided, I was happy to integrate the references properly and ensure it was a well-structured (if stubby) article, regardless of the notability of the "math rock-scene" it was meant to be an influence on. And I am not (yet) a lawyer, simply a student of the great beast :p. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

9. Give several reasons why someone might think you should not be an administrator. These can be recent incidents in which you have misunderstood policy, acted in an inappropriate manner made poor AfD/CSD nominations recently, or areas of work you are not familiar with, controversial opinions you hold, etc.

A: Well, 1) I'm not particularly familiar with image policy or work. I've been helping with the Contrib Team's Great Backlog Drive recently, adding image descriptions, and I did a spate of proposed renames back when the rename feature was switched off, but that's about it (I think I may have once submitted an image for deletion). It's not an area of policy or of work that I know much about or have much experience in, and it's one which the administrator tools will give me some ability to potentially mess up. I have, however, almost no intention of getting involved there. This may change, and if it does, I'll be sure to bone up on policy and procedure before jumping in, but as of this moment it simply doesn't interest or concern me. The same applies to 2), dispute resolution - I rarely post at ANI or get involved in the wider areas of debate in the wiki (the number of people here complimenting my work was a pleasant surprise, since the articles related to English law tend to be relatively tumbleweed-filled). Like with image work, however, it isn't an area I want to be involved in. I don't think it's something that suits me, nor one that interests me, and it shouldn't concern me any more as an admin. Despite the assumption of some members of the community that being an admin somehow gives you a bigger argumentative dick (as it were) than the other guy, being an admin makes little or no difference in active dispute resolution - the only distinction between admins and other users, the tools, are prohibited from use in a situation you're already involved in - and I'm not going to start getting involved now just because my toolbar has a few more buttons.

3) is a controversial one, but.. I'm fine with paid editing. If they post neutral, verifiable content and declare their conflict of interest, I don't see why it should be a problem. Banning paid editing does not end it, it simply means we don't know about it, most of the time, and discourages people from putting the time into decent articles rather than moneyspinners. However, policy debates are, like dispute resolution, simply not an area I tend to get involved in. If I was to get involved, it wouldn't be in my capacity as an admin, and the tools will make no impact. At the end of the day, I follow policy; unless I consider it completely insane, to the point where no competent individual would reach that conclusion, I will apply it to its fullest extent, regardless of my personal opinions. Ironholds (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

10. What is the core of current English law? (Upon what key principles is it based?)

A:Ooh, this is a tricky one. Lots of areas of law are based on individual principles (the equitable maxims, which I love, for example) and lots of principles have exceptions (innocent until proven guilty, unless it's a libel case. Balance of probabilities, unless it's under the Misrepresentation Act). The three principles in theory which apply to English law as a whole are these: that Parliament is all-powerful. That the judges are all-knowing (long story). That decisions are made by the golden mete-wand of the law and not by the crooked cord of discretion. Personally, my key principle is that the law acts as a backbone; it is for when everything else has already passed. It is perfectly possible to execute a contract which is not legally valid - the question of its legality only occurs if it breaks down and goes to the courts. It is perfectly possible to say horrifying things in public about people and get away with it; it is not until they serve you a notice for libel that this becomes a legal matter. The law is for when everything breaks down, in one fashion or another (in tort law, that can be taken literally :P). Ironholds (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Malleus Fatuorum

11. Unless I've miscounted this is your seventh RfA. Why do you want to be an administrator so badly? Would you cling on to the extra bit so determinedly if this RfA was successful but your adminning subsequently went pear-shaped?

A: Simply because I think I'd be helpful. Wikipedia needs administrators - not for dispute resolution and ANI-gazing, which I have little or no interest in getting involved in, but for CSD and AfD work, the former particularly. Having said that, I have no interest in switching my interests overnight and going "bugger content, I've got pretty buttons to put into use!" - I think I'd be helpful, but not God's Gift to Wikipedia. I still have a load of GAs to write about the English Civil War, for one thing. This leads nicely into the second question, and the answer is "no". I expect to use the tools, I expect to use them regularly, and I hope to use them well, but I'm not pinning all my hopes and actions on the extra buttons. Most of my edits will still be content-based, and the removal of the tools would not make a significant difference. If you put yourself up for community approval as I've done here, you accept the possibility that you will eventually screw up and the community will call for your head. If it's so pear-shaped even I can see it, I'd probably step down to begin with. Ironholds (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Panyd

12. Users have raised questions regarding your judgement at past AfDs with regards to how you voted. My question is; how would you close the following outstanding AfDs and what would your summary rationale be?

A Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Tadros

This is a difficult one. The basic guideline for a person's notability requires multiple, reliable, independent sources covering the subject in significant detail. In this case, many sources can be discounted; Demo Magazine and the Second Source are alumni and university publications respectively, and I'd argue that, even if they are reliable, they cannot be considered independent. Others, such as blog posts, cannot be considered reliable sources in the first place. However, the CNBC and CLTV interviews are reliable, third party, and cover the subject in significant detail. That is the standard required for WP:BIO. While all of the comments from users have been "delete", Wikipedia is not a democracy - our model of government works on the strongest weight is given to the strongest argument. In this case, none of the arguments address the sources at all, and carry little weight. Taking that into account, my first inclination would be to keep. However, this is an AfD at its early stages; my most likely action would be to relist. If, after relists, no more arguments or no arguments more valid had been posted, I would close it as a keep. While there is information based on sources inappropriate for verifiability purposes, that is an editorial matter, and not something for AfD. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

B Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microgiving

A more tricky one. My initial reaction was "this is notable. I know this is notable. I can't go out and prove this is notable, because I'm closing it". The topic is one we should certainly have an article on, but WP:GNG provides that it needs coverage in multiple, reliable sources - the article as it stands only has one. None of the comments at the AfD address this lack of sources directly, nor, it seems, has anyone gone to the trouble of finding more. As such, my close would have to be to reluctantly, begrudgingly, delete, with a note in my rationale explaining that I approved of anyone trying to rewrite and repost the article with more evidence of notability. (In fact, once I get home, I'm going to rewrite the damn thing myself). Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

C Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish centenarians

Headscratching time. My initial and instinctive reaction is delete, but as we've confirmed, working purely on instinct is A Bad Thing most of the time. Unlike the first two example AfDs, users commenting here have provided excellent arguments based on policy, on both sides of the divide. I disagree with the nominator that calculating age constitutes original research, but I otherwise find myself swayed by the arguments of those in favour of deletion, particularly Fram. As such, given that Wikipedia works on a model were the greatest weight is given to those with the greatest arguments, and Fram et al provide far more convincing arguments than those who disagree with them, my action would be to delete. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

D Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Greyhawk timeline

My action would be to delete. The Keep arguments seem to based on the presupposition that the inclusion of this content in the main Greyhawk article would overburden it. This is, itself, based on the idea that all the content in the timeline article is worth keeping. The timeline itself is unreferenced, and the remaining content is already found, spread about, in the main Greyhawk article. This article consists of two types of content; nonverifiable content, and verifiable content already found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Neither justify the inclusion of the article. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Robofish

13. Following on from question 10: do you think Wikipedia administrators perform a similar role to judges in the English legal system? If not, in what main ways are they different?

AI don't think they do at all. The English legal system works on the principle, as I've said, that judges are all-knowing. To explain that; when the English legal system was first evolving after the establishment of a single nation in the 11th century, the common law and equitable judges in Westminster (as they'd now be) were sent out across the land to take note of all the laws in use. They were to write these down, bring them back to Westminster, and apply those laws that were appropriate to the entire nation as part of a uniform body of law. From this evolved the principles of precedent, and the right of common law judges to alter what they apply; the rather dodgy theoretical justification was that they knew exactly what the law was, and had memorised it all; it remained "in the breast of the judges", for want of the correct latin phrase. This is not the case for administrators - they are not all-knowing, nor can they amend the law they enforce, which, whatever the judges say in relation to National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC, is just what they do. I'd prefer to think of administrators as policemen; they enforce the law, regardless of their personal opinions on the matter, and have no more power to change it through their position of responsibility than any other citizen. Their actions are subject to review, by each other and by the community, in the same way that a policeman must justify his arrests in front of his superiors and his courts. And, finally, as administrators are there to bring order, rather than punishment, policemen follow the principle that "it is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. This is the chief aim of every good system of legislation, which is the art of leading men to the greatest possible happiness or to the least possible misery, according to calculation of all the goods and evils of life".

Additional question from Keepscases

14. Is it permissible for a Wikipedia editor's userpage to contain only a fully naked picture of himself or herself? Why or why not?

A:This is a problematic one. Wikipedia:User pages allows for (although cautions against) the inclusion of images, and does not specifically exclude naked ones (unless you want to use "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" - none of the examples really apply). Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia:Offensive material does not, as it happens, seem to apply to userspace. Within article-space, naked images have been removed on multiple occasions (see Wikipedia:Pornography for examples), normally replaced with illustrations or diagrams which do the same job, but, traditionally, more leniency has been given to articlespace. Sorry to faff with background details - the legal training, I guess. As far as I can see, there is no straight answer given under policy (although if I am wrong, I apologise for my ignorance of image policy, which I've already brought up). My attitude would be that, on face of things, they are not prohibited, with an exception for images where the user appears to fall under the US child pornography laws, which would obviously be deleted outright. There is room for debate in this area, however, and I'm sure one could MfD a naked image of a user with a rationale along the lines of "potentially disruptive content that does not add to (and indeed, greatly distracts) from Wikipedia and has the potential to bring the project into disrepute". My gut feeling, however, is that although not entirely kosher, they're fine within certain parameters. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from WereSpielChequers

15. How do you reconcile your comment when you prodded Basavaraja Devaru "literally the only coverage I can find is mirrors of Wikipedia" With the subsequent referencing of the article, especially to the Hindu.com?

A: I'm going to answer this this evening (and consider this message applicable to any future questions or queries, too) - this week has turned into rather a hectic one, with an essay on international human rights (comparative regionalism versus universalism) and my anarchic, overthrowing-the-status quo dissertation to copyedit; for those reasons, my on-wiki contributions are likely to be limited to "RfA stuff" and "things on my watchlist", with both rather curtailed. My apologies, Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Septentrionalis PMAnderson

16 Please find a discussion from AfD that you would close keep; if you can find one close to what you would consider the border, so much the better. Closing Keep when any admin would is not news; it also suggests that that is the only case you would Keep.

17 Please read WP:Practical process and comment. (It's not long.)

18 Would you set a term after which you would submit your adminship for re-approval?

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 their contributions before commenting.

Flame war. Irrelevant to Ironholds' RfA.

*Question nine is an interesting intellectual exercise, however I think that 1) it was answered in question 2, and 2) with a current tally of 51/0/1, I don't think that there really are strong cases against him at the moment. The possible damage from answering question 9, and having it read like a weak or phoned in answer, would lead me, if this were my RfA, to be apprehensive about answering the question. As to question 11, I dislike it immensely. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but Malleus Fatuorum looks like he's looking for an excuse to oppose. The question doesn't seem neutral. Now mind you, the underlying concept is worth addressing, but the wording itself just seems... aggressive. Now I could be wrong about it, but still, I find it disconcerting. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I actually get on very well with Malleus (which, I say in jest, possibly says bad things about me as a person ;P) and I have no problem with the question. People tend to provoke Malleus, and he then gets slapped down via the tools; it's natural that anyone with as many run-ins with admins would want to set a high bar or pose difficult questions. It's a lot more difficult to remove incompetent or inappropriate admins than it is to ask questions and ensure they don't get in in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC) It seemed to me, and it still does seem to me, to be a perfectly reasonable and neutrally worded question. Sven Manguard's bigotted assumption of bad faith on my part is in fact part of the reason why such a question is necessary. It is not my question that's "aggressive" or "disconcerting", but the number of those like Sven who start jumping up and down hysterically whenever I am perceived not to be toeing whatever they believe to be the party line. I prefer to think for myself, like it or lump it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC) And I would prefer you to redact your comment about Sven Manguard's statement being "bigotted" since by definition, addressing the content as bigoted implies the person making the statement is a bigot, which is a personal attack. Please consider rewording the above comment. BarkingFish 17:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Prefer whatever you like. Bigotted it was. For your naively childish interpretation to be consistent you would also have to be calling Sven for making a personal attack by calling me aggressive, which you significantly have not. Why not go play somewhere else? Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC) It doesn't seem an unreasonable question to me, but I don't think any RfA candidate would realistically answer along the lines of "yes, I'd cling to my bit for dear life and fight to keep hold of it until ArbCom stripped me of it", regardless of whether they would or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Neither do I, but questions prompt answers, and sometimes even thought. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (outdent) As someone who never gets involved in this "stuff", I'm finding it rather silly. If someone makes a bigotted statement that does not (by definition or not by definition) mean that they are a BIGOT. So Sven Manguard says that Malleus has made an "aggressive" statement. Does that mean he is saying that Malleus is an AGGRESSOR? Should Sven be blocked for making a personal attack? Anyone who has worked with Malleus knows that he is anything BUT an aggressor — he just doesn't suffer fools. So now I've called someone a FOOL (personal attack?) and I will have to be blocked! Just stop all this silliness and get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than having pathetic petty squabbles. Grow up kids! Goodnight.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Did you guys know that the elephant is the only animal with four knees?! Crazy right? Lara 19:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC) My issues with the question were twofold. First off, the more reasonable of the two phrases I take issue with is the phrase "want to be an administrator so badly." The number of RfAs could possibly indicate that he wants it "badly." Certainly seven RfAs in as many months would make that assertion highly plausible, but seven RfAs over four years, with the last failed RfA over a year ago, does not necessarily support that wording, which, as I have said, seems aggressive. As to the other point, the question asks "...Would you cling on to the extra bit so determinedly..." I have to applaud him on such illustrative prose, however it comes across to me as the equivalent of "If you get married after breaking up with six girlfriends, will you keep your new wife locked in the basement?" You could have instead asked if he was open to recall and in what form, and that would have been very neutral. Your question, however, was worded in such a way that I could reasonably interpret it as indicating that you thought he would do those things and was that kind of person. As to Malleus' response, there is a list of about two dozen people who I've had enough positive contact with on Wikipedia to trust the judgments of. If one of those two dozen or so people thought that my comment was bigoted, I might care. That Malleus called me as such really doesn't bother me at all. Certainly my opinion of him has been lowered considerably, as I don't see how my comments justify such a vitriol filled response, but there are plenty of people that I don't necessarily have high opinions of that I work well with. If anything, after this recent outburst, what he thinks of me now matters exceedingly less. Now, if no one else minds, I'd prefer we just end this thread, as unfortunately it has become increasingly unpleasant. TLDR: Malleus' word choice was not neutral, and his response to my comment has soured my opinion of him to the point that even if his criticism was valid, which I do not believe to be the case, that criticism would have to come from someone else before I'd trust or act upon it. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Can we all calm? Malleus has good reason to be wary of personal administrators. I trust that he likes me, trusts me, and did not mean ill to me personally by his choice of words. I have no problem with the question, and as such, there is no need for anyone else to feel differently. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I think that it's about time that you stopped with your personal attacks. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Ironically, I still believe that my initial posting was not a personal attack, which means that your calling me a Bigot was the first personal attack. Of course, since you don't see it that way it's really a moot point bothering with the ordering of things, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped pretending to be innocent in this affair. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC) What's ironic is that you don't even appear to be able to read. Where did I call you a bigot? Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Umm, 18:36, 2 January 2011. That's when you called my comment bigoted. Now I've tried to close this twice. I'm going to close it one more time. Please, for the love of got, stop reopening it. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Can it be quiet time now? Random animal trivia is not to enlighten. It's to lighten the air and get people to stfu. This isn't the place for a flame war. Malleus asked a question, the candidate happily answered, Malleus voted. The purposes of this page have been fulfilled, so if you two want to continue throwing poo at each other because someone other than the candidate took offense to the question, do it somewhere else. Lara 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Full Support as Nominator, I feel this user is going to make an excellent administrator for the project. The works should speak for themselves, and the actions should speak louder still. If this doesn't pass, I'll eat my hat. BarkingFish 23:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

   I may hold you to that. A full .ogg clip (CC-BY-SA compliant, of course) of you nomming on headgear. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Yup Kickass content.  IShadowed  ✰  23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Support solid contributor and will use the tools just fine. Will expand support rationale later, but sleep now beckons. Bencherlite^Talk 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Support Fantastic content work, hard working, knowledgeable, has a clue...what's not to like? Ironholds has gone from strength to strength and I believe he would make a great admin. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
5. MZMcBride (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Support Jeni ^(talk) 23:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Support- I've seen this editor around a lot. Always struck me as intelligent and responsible, so I have no problems supporting. Reyk _YO! 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
8. Support. I do not agree that FAs are an ideal barometer of admin potential; but I think that Ironholds can be trusted with the mop and would put it to good use. bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. A better editor than me, and I'm confident that the civility issues have been sorted out. I've met Ironholds a few times in real life, and although he has strong feelings, he's learned how to articulate them in a constructive manner. This gentleman is a boon to the project, and I for one see no reason why he shouldn't be trusted with the tools. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
10. I even offered to co-nom! PeterSymonds (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
11. I note question 2 demonstrates a conflation of "claim to notability" with "claim to significance or importance". The latter is the A7 criterion, which is narrower than the former. However I'm not seeing any evidence that this common conflation is actually causing him to make incorrect tags. Ironholds doesn't make any more mistakes than any reasonable admin does patrolling CAT:CSD. And "mistakes" there are inevitable due to the high rate of articles that enter CAT:CSD and the low number of admins who have to trawl through it. The sad fact is that the easiest way to pass AfD as a "deletion" candidate is to play CSD-tagging very very conservatively for two-three months to make your stats look famous. Ironholds shouldn't be disadvantaged for his unwillingness to game in that way. Overall, I'm satisfied that he is an appropriately qualified, capable and experienced candidate who should have passed some time ago. Also I've never opposed anyone's 7th RfA and I don't plan to start now ;) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Support. You satisfy the content criteria for users who prefer content editing. You also satisfy the criteria for users who prefer participation in administrative areas. AfD work is top-notch, and I think I've seen you reverting vandalism in the past. You would definitely make a fine administrator. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
13. Support I supported last time and will gladly do so again. His content contributions and dedication to the project speak for themselves, would be an excellent admin. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
14. Doesn't take shit, has skin of steel and, obviously, has a good content record and all that good stuff.  狐 FOX  23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
15. Per past support. NW (Talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Support (edit conflict) Your willingness to throw open the gates and show the community, some of whom are bound not to have come across you before, a seemingly comprehensive and clearly written account of your previous failings and mistakes, well, really speaks to the kind of character I'd hope to see in an administrator. Six failed RfA's shows me that you really want the job, which might bother me more if not for the whole throwing open the gates thing. To be honest, I really could care less about your content work, other than that it's nice to see you have some. Far more applicable is that you seem to have a very good grasp of areas such as CSD, which do far more to show me you have a solid grasp of policy, and you seem well trafficked around Wikipedia as a whole, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside about your general knowledge and competence levels. All and all, I think you're a good candidate. Perhaps not an excellent candidate, but still one I can get behind easily enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

    To be fair and WP:NPOV, those are only the mistakes I've made during the last 3 months and picked up upon :P. But thank you! Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

    Ethically speaking, it's the thought/effort that counts. Plus, with six prior failed RfAs, I'm sure that a complete list of mistakes would be unreasonably long and highly irrelevant. Your disclosures are the most comprehensive I've seen in an RfA, and your to the point honesty, even to the point that you're dulling a compliment I'm paying to you, is a refreshing thing to see. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

17. Support Reviewing past RfA attempts shows positive development into someone who knows when the mop should and should not be employed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
18. Didn't support last time, but would should have. Also, per Mkativerata's "I've never opposed anyone's 7th RfA and I don't plan to start now". Time to end this RfA nonsense. Just get adminship all ready! :) :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 23:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
19. Support. From what I've seen from Ironholds at NPP, DYK and elsewhere, he seems to be intelligent and thoughtful, and the content contributions demonstrate an extreme dedication to building the project. Perusing the previous RfAs I see there have been some concerns in the past, but the answers to the questions above suggest the candidate understands the concerns and has worked to address them. 28bytes (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
20. I don't think Ironhold's personality is particularly well suited to working with others in an administrative capacity, but he's a better candidate than I was, so I can't very much oppose for that. Prodego ^talk 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
21. Support My past opposition was weak at best. This time around, I cannot think of a reason to oppose. The content work among other things are truly impressive.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 00:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
22. Abso-bloody-lutely! I don't think this is the first time I've supported his RfA. Ironholds is that rarest of things: an editor with the skill and patience to write truly brilliant encyclopaedic content and a thorough understanding of what goes on "behind the scenes". If given the bit, he would be exactly what I try to be: the kind of admin who makes life easier for the writers and harder for those who seek to damage the project and the encyclopaedia while hopefully still finding time to write brilliant content. Good luck, my friend, you'll be a valuable addition to a stretched admin corps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Why not! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
24. Support per HJ Mitchell. You're a strong editor with a lot of patience, and we need as much of you as we can get. —Soap— 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
25. (edit conflict) A fantastic editor. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
26. Support. (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) An all-around excellent candidate who has worked hard for this privilege. Lucky (RfA) #7, or? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Oh really? Three? Wow.... Sven Manguard Wha? 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (P.S. Ironically, I ec'd trying to post this...)

    Personally, I would have given up and switched to the oppose column just to save myself the frustration after two... that's just me, though. >_> Lara 19:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

27. I'm a big supporter of the US government; it collects in one location all those citizens whom we most need to keep an eye on. In the same spirit, I hope to welcome Ironholds to the admin corps this time around. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Best. Support. Ever. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    I support the nomination of this support for best support ever; that makes it 2/0/0. A unanimous pass, if nobody objects! Ironholds (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Thirded. <--Not a word, but screw it... (3/0/0) Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, I think it's great the way the US takes it upon itself to torture and indefinitely detain people without rights. Way to go, guys. (That said, I am leaning towards supporting the candidate this time. But man: if that's the best support ever, you guys are just sad.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Hey, my legal area of specialty is human rights law; trust me, I know the strange, evil and downright ultra vires stuff the US does and gets others to do (R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) is one of my favorite articles) but humour has never been bound by propriety (it's one of the things which makes humour humour, in many cases) and I'm certain that's nothing to do with what Dank was referring to. Ironholds (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    I know, I know. And I'm all for comedy. But hey: when does the rest of the world get justice for all the sh*t you guys have pulled over the decades? Anyway, good luck this time, seriously. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not American, I'm British. And seriously, you guys get justice all the time; it is impossible for me to walk into a history museum and not leave feeling guilty :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Shawn, I guess I rather spoiled the joke by not being clear ... I meant "one place" as in Washington, not Guantanamo. - Dank (push to talk) 04:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    "Best support ever?" Pah. The best support ever wasn't even for an RfA, it was for a community ban proposal. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 14:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I think this is bester. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

28. Support Has clue, will travel. No really, he does - I know this user in real life. He can be trusted with the tools and his content has been described by a University of Cambridge Professor of English Law as "impressive". He is already unquestionably an asset to Wikipedia and as an administrator, would be so even more. WilliamH (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
29. Support I'm getting a little tired of seeing your name on these RFA's, and because you just won't stop making them and accepting Nom's, this should put a stop to it. :P Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
30. Support: Great content work and great overall contributions spanning a long period, and clearly a great understanding of how Wikipedia all works. The only possible problems aired last time look to be well sorted, and the openness and honesty in discussing it this time round is highly commendable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. I vociferously support this nomination. If an editor's overwhelmingly positive content contributions to the encyclopedia mean anything, this editor has earned the privilege of being an administrator several times over. My first contact with Ironholds was in the aftermath of a rather unpleasant encounter with one of the WP image copyright police, and the whole affair had left me questioning why I was spending so much time working on Wikipedia. I had attempted to use WP procedures as I understood them, and all I got was grief. I was genuinely angry. Ironholds, with nothing to gain and for no reason other than his instincts for peace-making and helping other editors, stopped by my talk page and started a two-way conversation that has never stopped over the past 18 months. He has helped me substantively with my article work with both advice and sound writing. I have never met the chap, but I consider him a friend. He is smart, he is funny, he knows how to write, and he has demonstrated that he knows how to handle conflict when necessary. If Ironholds is not qualified to be a WP administrator, then I have yet to meet the WP editor or current administrator who is. Let's give this guy the mop, and put him to work. Now, not later. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
32. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
33. Support. Knowledgeable, clueful, brilliant – definitely will be a great admin. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 01:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
35. It's about time that he's given the tools. There were some problems before, but I've been confident that Ironholds would make a fantastic admin from the beginning. ceranthor 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
36. Support Genuine positive to the project. Mop wisely. :-) KrakatoaKatie 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
37. Support - It doesn't matter to me how many RFAs there are—when the candidate is ready, he is ready. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
38. One two three... 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
39. Did it last time, happy to do it again. T. Canens (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
40. Support I had opposed last time round because of concerns over CSD tagging, and probably some temperament/tone issues, as well. While I appreciate BHG's neutral, I have no concerns this time around, and the nominator may not have to eat his hat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
41. Strong Support. We do not suffer from a lack of editors or sysops who are willing to speak as though they are expert in an area -- even when they are not. Iron, however, is a refreshing breath of fresh air in this regard -- when he takes a position on an issue, he has a basis for it. We could use more of that.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
42. Support I must have missed the previous four. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 03:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
43. Strong Support - I've met Ironholds in person and I've considered him a good friend for quite some time now. I can vouch for his claim that he's generally kind. He's also very intelligent, hardworking, and dedicated to this project. I've seen a gradual transformation in him over the months; not only as an editor, but as a person. I supported his last RFA believing he would make a good admin. I support this one believing he will make a good admin and knowing that if he doesn't I'm going to sucker punch him in the spine the next time I see him... and then run, because he hits back. And as far as temperament, he's still the same guy he's always been, but his ability to process and regulate his emotions has matured and he's also checked his sense of humor in many regards. Additionally, he has available to him many friends and editors who are all too eager to put things into perspective for him if he should so request (and perhaps even if he doesn't). He's been here a long time and has a great deal of experience across the project. He also has his priorities in a respectable order and is a qualified candidate for areas in need of further admin attention. If you have concerns about him, please take the time to look through his contributions, for he genuinely has put forth the effort to improve himself, as I said before, as an editor and a person. Lara 03:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    That's beautiful. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    The threat of physical violence or the other parts? XD Lara 05:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

    Both. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

44. Support--John (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. Good content contributor, appears to have addressed issues raised in previous RFAs. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. This candidate has taken to heart advice from prior RfAs and will most likely prove a solid admin. Ironholds is helpful to others and is a dedicated, experienced editor. He has my trust. Majoreditor (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
47. Strong support - Leo 04:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
48. Strong Support NO concerns. IQinn (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
49. Support The candidate is clearly someone who has paid his dues. Hardworking, collegial, fabulous content contributor. Hopefully, now is the time--Hokeman (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
50. Support - Per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
51. Support I have had interaction with this user never had any porblems great content never seen any issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
52. Support. Excellent contributer in virtually all aspects of the project. Jenks24 (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
53. Support No concerns at all,  Roger ^talk 05:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
54. Rainbow Support--Zalgo (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
55. Support Pilif12p :  Yo  06:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
56. Strong support Glad to support. =) Bejinhan talks 06:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
57. I swear to god if you make this guy run a 6th 8th time... He should have been an admin a long time ago. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Not that Wikipedia needs more lawyers in the making. :P Brandon (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
59. Support Seems like a good influence to Wikipedia; I see no significant reason to oppose admin privileges. Aeonx (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
60. Support Though anyone who would allow themselves to go through hell week seven times must be at least slightly crazy, the candidate has genuinely improved since last time. Courcelles 11:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
61. Support- We rarely share the same opinions on various debates, but I happen to know for a fact that you are an extraordinarily dedicated Wikipedian with a vast experience. There are absolutely no reasons to assume that you cannot be trusted with the tools. Kudpung (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
62. Support because of clue, although in our latest encounter I would have wished for a small note explaining what the problem was instead of a shortcut to a 151K page where the issue is not explained at all. (I took the time and indeed found the link, and I was wrong with my edit, but you could have saved me the better part of an hour.) --Pgallert (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
63. Support A good thing for Wikipedia. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
64. Support About time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
65. Support. Ticks all the boxes. Impressed by answers and attitude towards previous RfAs, as well as the willingness to learn and improve from criticism. Trebor (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
66. Support. Sven Manguard's comment above (that I asked the question I did because I was looking for a reason to oppose) is very far from the truth. In fact I've found Ironholds very easy to get on with and very helpful when we've interacted at GAN, but I have a general disquiet about the difficulty of removing any administrator short of any offence less severe than mass murder. Absent a proper system of checks and balances it has to boil down to trust, and I have no reason to distrust Ironholds. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
67. Support. There are two things that immediately come to mind re: my past experiences with Ironholds: (1) he is very motivated to help, and (2) he is able to evolve. Lest this sound like faint praise, it's not. The ability to adjust our approaches and perceptions is crucial to being an admin if we're to reflect the will of the community and not simply become little despots, convinced our way is the One True Path. Add to that competence, and he seems like a great candidate to me. I trust Ironholds not to lose sight of our purpose, but to be an able admin. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
68. Candidate is more than ready. AD 14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
69. Support - I thought he was already an admin. ~NerdyScienceDude 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
70. Support A nice way to start the New Year after a long drought. Collect (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
71. Strong support, switching from neutral. I had hoped that the answer to my question 6 would satisy my concerns, and it does so partly. I had inadvertently worded the question to allow it be reasonably read as focusing solely on temperament, and Ironholds satisfied me on that point. I had also intended the question to refer to errors of judgement, but am unsurprised that was not answered because I did not make it clear that I wanted an answer on that point. However, that lingering doubt about judgement have been addressed in the answers about other questions, so I am switching to a strong support because of Ironholds prolific and high-quality content contributions, the high quality of his judgement and policy knowledge on the specific questions raised, and his rigorous determination to remedy any deficiencies found along the way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
72. Support No issues here. Not sure why I opposed 2 RfA's ago. ThemFromSpace 16:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
73. Support. Good, thoughtful answers to the questions. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
74. Happy to support again. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
75. Support - why not give him a chance. I can't see any big issues. Understands content well and I hope with the tools to amuse him he that he doesn't stop creating it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
76. Support, all-around solid track record warrants a support any day...but esp. today to counter the "bigoted woman incident" theatrics below. That topic always has and always will earn a "strong delete". Tarc (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
77. Support Even as an editor firmly in the "need more admins" camp, id say your content work is so outstanding it will be a shame for you to be distracted by admin duties. And the Colonel's concern about patience for editors who dont meet your high standards seems worth reflection. But overall I expect youll be a great positive as an admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
78. Support No concerns here. AniMate 19:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
79. Support Great user, can be trusted with the mop. Peter.C • talk 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
80. Support, with pleasure. A great user who I have enjoyed positive interaction with. Pointless oppose by Colonel Warden noted and, as usual, easily rejected. Not going to damage the place with the tools, only improve it. Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
81. Support for the fourth time (1st, 2nd, 3rd)! – Athaenara ✉ 20:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
82. Support. I opposed last time, user now has my support as my concerns re CSD have been addressed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
83. Support. Intelligent, reasonable editor with good taste in music. A heavy content contributor yet someone who does deal with the adminny side of the site. I went from opposing one of his RfAs to conominating him last time. He's the only person I've ever nominated for adminship- that says something. J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
84. Stephen 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
85. Support: of course. He can be abrasive, but he has worked on it and is very well spoken and can argue LIKE A BOSS. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
86. Strong support Kittybrewster ☎ 23:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
87. Per Lara, Malleus, J Milburn, Sceptre, and Q10. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
88. Per Lara and J Milburn, except for the music. :p Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
89. Support Good balance of content and admin type work, seems clued in. Ceoil 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
90. Have been waiting for a long time now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
91. Support He will become a great administrator. WAYNESLAM 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
92. Support From what I have seen - this guy is ok, serious, works hard and he can do the job...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
93. Support Heck yes! --Bsadowski1 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
94. Support In my short time here he has already helped me with one of my articles, and in my other contacts with him he has been nothing but kind and civil. I would strongly urge those 'neutrals' and 'opposes' to reconsider - if you have concerns about his behavior, look no further than this very RfA. He has answered all questions in a way that promotes the ideal of trust for an administrator. The key for any admin is that the community can feel safe with them watching over. I trust him, and for me that is enough. Respectfully, Lord Roem (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
95. Yeps Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
96. Support strong candidate and hard worker who will do us proud as an admin. The Interior(Talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
97. Support: Per above. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
98. Support Single-handedly writing most of our coverage of English law. When it is becoming increasingly difficult to add new information to Wikipedia one only needs to review the contributions of Ironholds to remember that the Wikipedia project is far from finished.  Francium12  04:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
99. Support. Tiderolls 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
100. Support – Why the hell not? —mc10 (t/c) 05:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
101. Support Wish I saw this earlier. Adminship is no big deal and you would be a fine admin. Basket of Puppies 07:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
102. Excellent contributor, who should do well as an admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
103. Support just don't be too hasty deleting stuff and I'll be happy. Reflective and thoughtful is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
104. The best administrators are those who are most aware of their limitations, and Ironholds- besides being a perceptive and valuable contributor- fits the bill. sonia♫ 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
105. Support - Of course. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
106. I've supported him the last several times, and I'll support him this time too. My rationale hasn't changed; he'll make a good admin and I can't see any problems. GedUK  09:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
107. Support despite lingering concerns over some moments of over-enthusiatic deletionism. Certainly an outstanding content creator, which is important. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
108. Yes Secret ^account 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
109. Oh, sure, why not? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
110. Support no reason to believe that he would misuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
111. Support - regretting my oppose last time round. I am entirely satisfied now that Ironholds knows what he is doing and is competent enough that he would be a valuable addition to the admin corps. Robofish (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
112. Glad I caught this before it closed. Has my full and complete support for reasons mentioned in previous RfAs. Good Luck. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
113. Support. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
114. Support—I've seen a great improvement in Ironhold's demeanor since his last two RFAs and I applaud his efforts to take advice and improve. This, coupled with his excellent contributions over the years, clearly show that he will make a great admin. Airplaneman ✈ 19:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
115. Support. Clearly, someone who is very intelligent and who is committed to doing what is best for the project. I find the criticisms that have been raised up to this point to be unconvincing. It seems to me that this is an RfA that has gotten an extraordinary amount of scrutiny, if one includes all the scrutiny from the past attempts. Thus, it's inevitable that a few issues over deletions can be found, but I don't want to see experienced users rendered ineligible for RfA simply because they have too much of a paper trail. In contrast, I'm impressed by how many users whom I respect came forward very quickly to support, including some who had opposed in the past. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
116. WTHN, won't break the wiki, and I trust that he has integrity enough to step down if enough concerns are raised. → ROUX ₪ 19:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
117. Support Wat. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
118. Support Looks like the candidate has learned some hard lessons and has made great strides to improve his standing. Dreadstar ☥ 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
119. Support I won't hold the fact that I know him IRL against him. Will be a great admin. Kinda surprised he's not already. --Jayron32 21:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
120. Support frankly criticising a user for making a deletion vote for an article which only has one non delete/merge vote is ridiculous. Also per the support of many other users above whose opinions I respect. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
121. Support - Ironholds has always been a dedicated user with Wikipedia's best interests strongly in mind. At this point I can definitely see the required levels of experience, maturity and knowledge have been demonstrated - definitely time for the admin bit. ~ mazca ^talk 23:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
122. Support Excellent contributor. Has made great strides, and his recent talk page discussions look fine. As far as AFD, I'm not playing "gotcha". King Pickle (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
123. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
124. Support A strong history and an incredible dedication to wikipedia. You're bound to find mistakes if you nitpick, but Ironholds would be an absolutely invaluable Administrator in my opinion. Nick Wilson (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
125. Tar and feather... I mean, Support. So sorry to chime in near the end of the pack, as I had wanted to make a statement that Oliver would tear up over. Now, it'll be lost in the pile, so the best I can hope for now is a chuckle or two. In any case, Ironholds is a stellar contributor in his preferred areas of editing, and he has a rather strong hold of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as a judicial sense in a broader context that would be invaluable in many of an admin's tasks. His manner of wit may be offputting to some, but he is brilliant in his wordplay (he once neatly placed my foot in my mouth over an ill-considered lolcat joke without actually saying anything about myself or my words), and generally has come to know the limits of humour and with whom will not become offended at a joke; he's had ample experience at failing in this regard. I think he's mellowed in his mannerisms, or rather, as he says it, tempers it better with more awareness at the limits of digital communication. He will be a valuable admin, working in areas in sore need of help. And of course, anyone with the balls to walk around the streets of Raleigh, North Carolina in full British court dress (to include an antique powdered wig) certainly deserves some extra consideration. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

     I can't believe none of us got pictures of that... ._. We've failed the project. Lara 14:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

     I'll bring it in August and you can take pictures, howsat? Ironholds (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

126. Support My opinion is that wikipedia needs more high-quality editors as admins, and nobody is more entitled in my view to answer such a lack than Ironholds.Aldux (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
127. Support Noticed him a few times at DYK, and after reviewing his backstory, I'm pretty impressed with the improvement. Good luck! Worm 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I reviewed the candidate's contributions for a month within the last year, per my usual RfA practice. The month that I'm using for this purpose currently is April 2010 where I soon find cause for concern:

   Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Ledger. This is the first AFD that I come to. The significant point about this is that this seems to have been a hoax article but the candidate misses this completely. This indicates that the candidate failed to check out the article per the standard deletion process. I pointed out a similar case at the last RFA - the article Crab collars - which the candidate had passed as patrolled even though it too was a hoax. Hoaxes ought to be easy to sniff out but the candidate still does not make appropriate background checks and so is too easily fooled.

   Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident. This soon catches my eye as it was quite a big deal. The candidate's !vote in this case is Strong delete. He says that this topic does not pass WP:EVENT and argues this position at length with some testy unpleasantness too. Now, this incident was front-page news at the time. When we review what is being said it about it now, at the end of the year, we see that this event is still regarded as being highly significant. For example, see Gordon Brown's 'bigoted woman' gaffe makes list of quotes of the year or Gillian Duffy: why she made the headlines in 2010. The woman in question is now anxiously courted by the next generation of Labour party politicians but bigoted woman incident is still a red link and there is no article about this.

   Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosley v United Kingdom. This is a high-profile legal matter - the candidate's speciality. What I notice about this is the candidate's peculiar verdict: "Delete or Merge". It seems that he understands that there is some content worth preserving here but can't bear to give up the option of just deleting it all. But merger and deletion are quite different outcomes at AFD as one preserves the edit history but the other does not.

   So, in summary, I'm not seeing a significant change in the candidate's behaviour since the last RfA. He still seems too hasty and intemperate as he does not seem to give other editors' articles the same respect and attention that he gives his own. At the last RfA, I said "Ironholds is impatient and intolerant of work which does not meet his own high standards. This makes him a good editor but a poor administrator." This is still my judgement. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   This may sound like nitpicking, but Ironholds' last RFA was a year ago. You're picking a month closer to the last RFA than to this one, in the process missing out 8 months of solid improvement. Perhaps a month closer to the the present day would give you a different, more up-to-date outlook? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   The previous month I was using for sampling at RfA was October 2009. I moved my sampling window up 6 months when Oct-09 was over a year old. I am still content with Apr-10 as it seems to provide a good balance between age and the immediate run-up to this RfA. And it has worked out nicely in the case of the bigoted woman incident. I noticed that she was back in the news at the time of the party conferences but it was only after I started going through the candidate's April contributions that I realised that we'd have the end-of-year retrospectives now to see how that matter looks now. The Max Moseley case goes back to court on January 11 so I expect we'll be seeing more of that soon too.

   But let's click forward another 6 months and see what we find. The first AFD in Oct-10 is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarah Mariano. The curious thing about this is that the candidate !votes Strong Keep when User:DGG and the decision go the other way. An entry in a model directory is offered by the candidate as strong evidence of notability. This case makes a good contrast with the Gillian Duffy one. In one case, we have a person at the heart of a major political scandal - someone who brought down a Prime Minister - while the other case is a pretty person who has a job as a photographic model but does not otherwise seem to have attracted much comment. The candidate used the word "Strong" to qualify his opinion in both cases. My view is that he got these cases backwards and that the verdict of history will be the opposite. This seems to be evidence of erratic, impulsive judgement in which the merits or demerits of a case are overstated. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I applaud the diligence, but I'm not finding the conclusions quite so persuasive. In Sara Ledger, the candidate identifies a rationale for deletion, while opposer identifies a different rationale. Is there a requirement that an AfD be an exhaustive list of deletion reasons, or merely a sufficient list? I often see CSDs tagged for some reason, then a separate tag for a copyvio. Do we routinely chastise the original tagger for missing the copyvio? I accept that Crab collars was more problematic, but that occurred when the candidate was deemed not yet ready.

   I'm not fully familiar with Bigoted woman incident, but it seems to me that the opposer's observation that we still have no article cuts against the point. The original rationale emphasized WP:EVENT. Some contributors supported deletion, with acceptance that the article could be recreated if it did turn out to be more substantial. At this time, no editor has made the judgment that it deserves an article. At the moment, the original rationale is holding up. I read one of the year end articles—the emphasis was on the 24 hour mews cycle, so while there is subsequent coverage, it supports the original deletion argument.--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sphilbrick has beaten me to it. The Bigoted woman incident looked at the time like yet another minor campaign spat which had briefly excited a newspack obsessed with easily-packaged trivia to fill the new cycle rather than the big issues of the campaign, and one which fitted the meme of criticising Brown's communication abilities (or lack thereof). CW may be right that this will be regarded as a historically important moment, but while I beg to differ, 7 months is still not a historical perspective. If that spat is rated by the historians in five or ten years time, we can of course consider recreating an article; but I do not sahre the view that every brief media sensation is encyclopedic.

   As to Sara Ledger, Sphilbrick has it spot on: Ironholds found solid reasons to delete, and quite sensibly chose not waste his time in looking for more. I regard that as evidence of very sound judgement.

   On Mosley v United Kingdom, Ironholds judgement also looks spot on to me: per WP:CRYSTAL, which Ironholds cited, the article was about a topic which has not yet been proven to have lasting significance. Many law cases are started, but not all proceed, and not al of those which do proceed are significant, and it was quite reasonable to conclude that an article should not be created until the facts justified it. "Delete or merge" is perfectly sensible recommendation in such cases; it is often margin call whether there is actually any material worth preserving.

   That leaves me wondering what this oppose is really about. In every case listed by CW, it seems to me that Ironholds judgement was either correct (in my view) or well within the bounds of reasonableness; but CW seems determined to fail the candidate simply because Ironholds does agree with CW's own assessments. That seems to me to a very poor way to approach an RFA, and while CW is entitled to his own consistent view that any AFD must be accompanied by a forensic investigation worthy of a murder inquiry, it seems to me to be inappropriate to oppose adminship simply because a candidate does not fully share the same place on a process where the community encompasses a range of different approaches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   A lively case could be made in support of a bigotgate article, but even it was accepted Ironholds was sharing a position that seems to be widely held by most of the community. As for Jarah Mariano, DGG also voted delete for Leonora Claire who I was trying to rescue! Maybe he just doesnt like models, which goes to show even the best of us arent perfect. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Just a minor note for accuracy's sake: present redirects to United Kingdom general election, 2010 include Bigotsgate, Bigotgate, Bigoted woman, Gordon Brown bigot woman case, Gordon Brown bigoted woman case, Gordon Brown Rochdale case, Gordon Brown Rochdale Incident, Gordon Brown Rochdale gaffe, and Rochdale bigot...that Bigoted woman incident isn't also a redirect seems to be a trivial point with a trivial fix. There isn't a separate article on the incident (as opposed to the merged content presently found at United Kingdom general election, 2010#April) because the DRV had no consensus to overturn the deletion and nobody's written anything new to replace the redirects. — Scientizzle 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   Colonel Warden, I'm not trying to jump on a bandwagon here or anything like that, but BHG and Sphilbrick both raised points that I would have had I been around earlier today. I'd simply like to ask that you please review these matters again and, perhaps, reconsider your vote. Even if you don't completely agree with their arguments here, it's still a very small handful of edits from a much larger pool. I don't believe we should expect our admins to be infallible... I mean, that'd be great, really! Not realistic, though. So, consider points such as how willing he is to be persuaded (some people stand tough by their guns no matter what) and how willing he is to admit when he's wrong. We've had a lot of admins unwilling or unable to do the latter (I was one of them for a while) and we could use more who can. Sorry for piling on. Kind regards, Lara 17:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Colonel Warden, although I do not agree with your !vote, I want to congratulate you on doing detailed research before making your decision. All too often, folk at RfA (and in certain other venues) make a quick decision from their heart, rather than looking at the evidence; it's a very human failing, and we're all human. Taking the time to sift through old edits - looking at evidence before forming a judgement - is a Really Good Thing. bobrayner (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose - To many questions are raised by the strong oppose of Bigoted woman incident 1 minute after AFD opened. Including the continued strong delete rather then 'cover the event' as WP:1E suggests leaves my head spinning with a very big 'WHY'?. I could just about excuse people outside the UK who are unknowingly following Wikipedia:Systemic bias by others but the very first !Voter - nope. So I am left wondering what is going on i.e was it POV political bias, question of making rash decisions, inability to be informed, lack of judge etc. The Wikipedia coverage of bigoted woman incident should be similar to Joe the plumber to not be hypocritical. The ability to take a basic level of investigation and be ability to hold a neutral point of view are as I see it a basic requirement of being an admin. Therefore my decision is to oppose this candidate. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I'm an admin and I'm pretty sure I strongly advocated deletion of that article on a trivial non-event in an election campaign. It seems odd to oppose on the basis of a difference of opinion in an AfD several months ago, especially since that view was upheld in the close of the discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Those who wish to oppose a candidate based on one AFD discussion wherein the candidate argued for deletion based on policy and the article was subsequently deleted and remains, to this day, a red link... Well, they're entitled to such a position. Lara 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   If there's bias on his part, it's really strange bias. For one, he was a Lib Dem supporter during the election (and made no secret about it), and secondly, Rochdale was not only a Labour-LD marginal, but the #1 target for the party. If he was letting his bias affect his editing, he would've argued to keep the article. Additionally, looking over the AfD, I can see many seasoned British editors (like Ironholds) arguing for deletion, indicating that they believed that, systemic bias aside, this was not notable at all (and especially not on the level of Joe the Plumber). And finally, it did drop off the news-cycles very quickly and didn't affect the election at all (indeed, Labour ended with a net swing in the seat). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   So you are confirming he was at the time a political active Liberal Democrats supporter and so it is POV political bias. Thanks. At least that answers my 'WHY' question and explains his emotional involvement in the situation. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I would also have voted strong delete there, and I've recently become a Lib Dem member (Sorry in advance to all you Brits). Not sure if you know the background behind this, but his 'delete' vote had the effect of supporting the Labour Party (by removing the article about the key thing which brought down their government), not the Lib Dems. In any case, being a supporter of a political party doesn't mean that he's biased - unless all voters from a country are equally biased. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   Indeed. As I said, Ironholds and I spent some time on #wikipedia-en talking about British politics, and he was evidently no fan of Labour. If he wanted the Lib Dems to win Rochdale—which they could've easily done, but surprisingly didn't—and he was a POV pusher, he would've wanted it to be kept. Evidently, he did not want it kept. And, for the record: I'm still a Lib Dem, and I would've !voted delete. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   You evidently do not understand our point of view policy and/or the UK political system.  狐 FOX  00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   Let me get this straight - you're opposing because you disagree with him?  狐 FOX  21:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry. I don't care to answer misrepresentation straw man arguments. A re-reading of my previous post should point you to my requirement of an admin to have an ability to take a basic level of investigation and be ability to hold a neutral point of view. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I re-read your original argument and, honestly, it doesn't make sense to me. You're citing systemic bias about a Brit on a British topic. Maybe I should re-read WP:BIAS, but I'm pretty sure that's not what it's about. Your other point was a time stamp. No one needs to investigate a matter they are already familiar with. I mean, overall, you've pretty clearly lined out how you don't agree with the outcome of the AFD, not just the candidate's position in it. That, quite unfortunately, makes it seem as though you're voting based on a disagreement about a specific article, one in which the consensus agreed with the candidate. If you want to call that a straw man... well, perhaps I should re-read that page too, because I'm pretty sure that's not what it's about. Lara 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Are you saying that becuase he said, "Stong delete" you are viewing this as evidence that he might have potential bias somewhere down the line? If you could clarify this, that would be great. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Kevin, yes. Not just the "Strong delete" on it's own, but that it was posted first and almost immediately within a minute - hence the diff post, and then continued position by posting five more times in the AFD that was only open for 1 hour. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   What does the number of posts have to do with anything? It's a discussion. He was responding to replies. You've posted to this RFA four times. I don't see what relevance that has, other than to demonstrate that he isn't one to shoot and walk away. That would be far more of a burden on the project, of course. Lara 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   I'm sorry he did not agree with you in that AFD. Time to move on. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you and others wish to pursue a line of false assumptions. I take it as a sign that Ironhold has many supporters. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   It looks like we have an oppose here based on the candidate supporting deletion of an article which was deleted by consensus, and remains deleted, without DRV or re-creation; bad start. That article might have helped the party he allegedly supported, its deletion is taken as evidence of him pushing his POV; silly. And finally we have it all wrapped up in hype about the signifcance of the event in question.

   Why all this hype? Labour had been in big trouble in the opinion polls since late 2007, and their defeat was about as surprising as turkey at Christmas. (See what Mandelson wrote about his cabinet colleagues describing the Labour campaign as 'futile', 'finished' and 'fucked'). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose Anyone who has been through 6 previous RFAs just wants it too badly for me to be comfortable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   I nominated the user because I felt comfortable with the fact that he had addressed the previous issues which lead to the death of his previous RFAs, Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I didn't nominate him based on the idea that he wanted it, although he's accepted - I nominated because he'd make a damn fine admin, and 96 people disagree with you. Comfortable or not, I understand why you oppose though, and I won't do anything to change your mind. BarkingFish 04:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   I agree with you, which is why I asked my question, and what a ball of shit that turned into. But there's an assumption here that lots of admins are needed, rightly or wrongly. I think wrongly, but so long as I'm in the minority I trust Ironholds to do a decent job. Malleus Fatuorum 05:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   I need some; User:Ironholds would be more than welcome to come hang out with me. :) I know he'd do a good job in that department. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose I see no reason to think his judgement has really improved. His proposed delete on the Irish centenaries test case is a prime case of admin super-vote for a situation he admits is evenly balanced. He should at least have known about the existence of a relevant active arb com case. (and I endorse most of what CW has said) Basically, the argument he gives for trusting him is that people will be watching if he messes up. That's certainly true, but we need admins who don't need such precautions beyond the ordinary. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC) .

   "Unlike the first two example AfDs, users commenting here have provided excellent arguments based on policy, on both sides of the divide. I disagree with the nominator that calculating age constitutes original research, but I otherwise find myself swayed by the arguments of those in favour of deletion, particularly Fram." - "Both parties have made strong arguments...particularly those in favour of deletion" is not "evenly balanced". I was unaware of an arbcom case, and it seems none of the people at the AfD were either, because it hasn't been mentioned there. If you could give me a link I'd be happy to reassess my comments. The AfD in question has now been closed, with the admin coming to the same result I did. Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

   See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. SmartSE (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

   This appears to be yet another opposer upset that an AFD didn't go their way. I quite find it amusing, really, that 3/4th of the current votes in this section do well to highlight Ironholds' strong arguments at AFD that, ultimately, consensus and the closing admins agree with. That said, why on earth would any uninvolved editor who doesn't troll WP:RFAR for their drama fix have any idea that case even exists? And how is it relevant? "AFD" pops up precisely four times on that case page. Once in the case statement and three times in an arb comment, all in reference to a 2007 AFD. "Irish" and "Iron" don't pop up at all. So what's the connection? Lara 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

   I can understand a theoretical connection with the RfAr, and I initially interpreted DGG's comments to be referring to an active (i.e., enforced) ArbCom case; taking that into mind, I offered to review my answer now that I have more information. Having read the RfAr in question, however, I'm a bit confused. It is an open case dealing with user behaviour on tangentially related articles. ArbCom does not have the jurisdiction to rule on content matters, and even if it did, an open case does not binding precedent set. The community does not suspend decisions in a broad area when a narrow section of it is subject to a Request for Arbitration where no ruling has been made, particularly since none of the participants in the AfD I found particularly convincing are in any way involved. For that reason, my answer to Panyd's theoretical question remains the same. Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose I am not impressed with the quality of RFA decisions. Excellent editor, but given the direction deletions seem to be moving these days, I do not feel comfortable with the issues outlined above. Issues like the one raised above with Irish centenaries shows he misses the point: an admin should not have to be "watched" to make the right choices but should only become an admin when the "right choice" is the natural one for him or her. I don't think I'd make a good admin, which is why I never tried,and after seven times perhaps this should start to sink in. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 18:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now, because I'm genuinely undecided. I hope that the answer to my question 6 will push me off the fence, but at this point my final conclusion is likely to be either a strong support or an equally strong no. What I see now looks good: an accomplished and well-rounded editor with tons of great work in content creation, and huge dedication to hard work in project processes. I hugely admire Ironholds's perseverance after so many rejections, and if this was a second or third RFA I'd rush to qive my unqualified support. However, I can't yet decide whether to just welcome the tremendous commitment to addressing concerns at previous RFAs, or to conclude that since it has taken so many attempts to get here, this training has somehow been working against the grain of Ironholds's instincts and temperament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

BHG, I have encountered your work, and I have read your own strongly expressed opinions (usually in agreement). I admire your work and have rarely questioned your judgment, but I do ask you to reconsider your thought processes in this instance. If any editor has arrived at a position in his WP career where he is qualified to wield the mop, why on God's green earth would we look a gift horse in the mouth? I can name (but will not, for obvious reasons) dozens of currently active administrators who are far less able writers, who have made far fewer positive contributions to the encyclopedia, who have far less clue, and who have far less the temperament for constructive conflict resolution than Ironholds does. As one of the admirers of your work, may I suggest that you evaluate this RfA on its present merits, rather than on your own perception of the evolutionary process by which the candidate has become the fundamentally sound candidate that he presently is? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine, Dirtlawyer1; I'm happy to answer the question. With any big change, the question will inevitably arise "has he really changed? And if so, will it last? And if so, are the problems going to be expressed in some other way?" If it wasn't BrownHairedGirl posing this, someone else would have - in a way, I'm grateful to BrownHairedGirl for letting me get the issue out of the way so early in the process :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds, I get that—the question must be asked and answered—but there are many of your fellow editors who are your supporters and who know you by your work ethic, your kindness and your demonstrated clue, and we want your past and present skeptics to know just how strongly we, your supporters, support this RfA (and for all the right reasons, I might add). I also want you and BHG to know that I will be the first to trout-slap you if you exhibit any of the past issues over which BHG has expressed concern. We want you to have the tools, and we want you to succeed as an admin for the benefit of the community. If we are going to function as a community, then we need to learn to trust the collective wisdom of the community. Now, I'm going to climb off my Speaker's Corner soap box, and return you to your regularly scheduled programming. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Spookily I'm off to Speaker's Corner tomorrow afternoon with a fellow Wikipedian; stay on the box! We'll take pictures of you :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, thanks for all the compliments about my work, though to be honest I don't think I'm as good an editor as Ironholds. That's one of the reasons why I have found it difficult to reach a decision here, because there are so many reasons to say support-in-spades. I considered the possibility of sitting it out rather than raising concerns which could come across as mean, but I thought that was a cop-out, and that if I was back on a job-interview panel considering the merits of a candidate, this was one of the things we would have to find some way of considering.

I generally find that the best decisions are not those made by acclamation (look at all those flaky laws passed in a hurry), but those made after considering the options. Things which initially look straightforward often are, but sometimes they turn out not to be, so in my experience it's best to do a bit of a stress-test even if it seems likely to be superfluous. So I reckoned the best thing to do was to try to find some way of raising this which reflected both my view of the candidate's strengths and my one meta-doubt, and see what the answer was. Maybe you're right that in this case I am looking a gift-horse in the mouth ... but please can you hang on while I do one check to try to satisfy a niggling doubt that there may be a fatal flaw in there? The RFA has 7 days left to run, and there'll be plenty of time to discuss whatever conclusion I reach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

BHG, I have never known you to be anything other than fair, and that was why my comment above was written to appeal directly to your own sense of fairness. Whatever your personal decision to support or oppose this RfA may be, I have no doubt you will base your decision on what you perceive to be the best interests of the community. I, for one, have little doubt that the candidate will prove to be a strong asset to the project if given the opportunity. My only concern about Ironholds is personal: that having finally earned the mop, that he not spend too much time enthusiastically demonstrating his worth to project to the exclusion of the other professional activities in which he must engage to become the fine lawyer that I know he can be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, you're right: nuclear-strength oppose and tell Ironholds to sod off back to the law library and concentrate on proving himself as brilliant as Denning, but without seeing any appalling vistas ;)

Seriously, tho, thanks again for your kind words. I'll sleep on Ironholds's answer and see what I think of it tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Striking my neutral and switching to strong support per rationale I am about to post there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Ironholds' approach to deletion has improved considerably over the last RFA but some concerns over AFD mistakes (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Durham Proverbs shows a sloppy nomination without following WP:BEFORE just a month ago and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven T. Murray is an example where his nomination has not met any support from the community) and a too aggressive and/or hasty approach to speedy deletion (on these recent examples he later realized that the tagging was not correct: [2] [3] - these were declined: [4] [5] [6]; also, this A7 was simply incorrect, taggings within 4 minutes of creation are strongly discouraged and A10 is not for plausible redirects) still remain. As such, I don't think I can support this request - but given the improvements, I won't oppose it either. Regards SoWhy 18:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I was rather concerned about The Durham Proverbs AfD as well, as it seemed to be an open-and-shut case to me. But that's just one of many encounters I've had with Ironholds, so I'm chalking it down to an honest mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   See The Durham Proverbs as nominated, and note that the nomination did not claim that the topic was non-notable. The problem was that it was a WP:OR essay. A better article has been written in its place, but Ironholds was quite correct to identify that the OR essay was not worth keeping. As it happens, the article was rewritten within a day of the AFD to remedy these problems, and Ironholds then quite properly withdrew the nom, and did so promptly. This is a persistent disagreement at AFD: some editors argue for keeping any old dross on a notable topic in the hope that it may be rewritten; others legitimately say that while an encyclopedic article or stub could be written on the topic, this is not it.

   It seems to me that it is at best misleading to call this a "mistake". It looks to me more like a different approach to what was commonly agreed to be a problem, and comes down to whether editors take a narrow or broad view of WP:DEL#REASON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   The article as it was at this point did have a references section, citing 9 different publications, so saying "Blatant WP:OR" is not correct and imho shows a attitude to WP:BITE newcomers. I'm especially concerned that Ironholds did not try to address the problem at all, neither on the talk page nor with the user directly. I'm also concerned that he generally is too inclined to WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! when handling deletion candidates. I don't think it helps any new editor, like in that example, when the second page to their talk page is "Your page should be deleted because of: WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY". Regards SoWhy 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Your assertion that "Ironholds did not try to address the problem at all" is untrue: he proposed the deletion of content which fell way short of acceptable standards. That may not be your preferred solution, but it is one legitimate way of addressing the deficiencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   While it is a legitimate way of addressing such issues, if SoWhy isn't comfortable supporting a candidate who uses such methods, he's certainly entitled to his neutral position. Lara 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sure, SoWhy is entitled to his views, and to !vote as he sees fit. I just think it's a pity to describe a disagreement as a mistake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   I think it was me who described it as a mistake, not SoWhy, and I stick to that view. It was a mistake. Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry if my comment was unclear, I sometimes have that problem when I try to translate German phrases into English and forget that they have a slightly different meaning. When I said "address", I meant that he did not try to talk about the problems in the article first. In this case, we have a new editor who obviously tried to create a valid article, including multiple sources, and all they got was a automatic deletion notification, citing a few abbreviations. I won't dispute that deletion is a valid way to address problems but per WP:ATD I don't think it's a valid approach when editing can address the problems and per WP:BITE certainly not when the article you are dealing with is a good-faith attempt by a new editor - at least not without first trying to talk to them. Regards SoWhy 21:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral I'm a little bit reluctant to support here I'm afraid, despite the exceptional hard work that you've done over the past couple of years. I've seen you around for a while (Since 2009 I think it was) and I've even nominated one of your GA's which was successful. Even with that, my only concern is the temperament problems that you've had in the past (Despite the fact that you weren't blocked). And also, the answer to Q1, I don't mean to take this personally but that is quite a lot of areas for a newcoming admin, but you're not the only candidate who plans to take part in such a wide range of admin tasks. I'd really appreciate if you do more to the encyclopaedia though, as that is one of your strong areas of Wikipedia so far, but I still think that giving you the privileges would make a great big difference to the whole of Wikipedia. Minimac (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Minimac's sentiments exactly, I'm afraid (although I applaud the willingness to help out in numerous areas). I may return and potentially reconsider my position, but I'm registering here for now. I do not think granting Ironholds the tools will be hugely detrimental to Wikipedia, but I still occasionally concerned at his characteristically frank manner of communicating. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Neutral Given that the problems identified by others (SoWhy mainly) are fairly serious and in an area I care about (deletion) I'm leaning toward oppose. However, given your answers above and generally upstanding behavior since the last RfA I can't bring myself to oppose. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I think I opposed two and three, and supported four. I've some concerns that are not heavy enough to weight an oppose, but I cannot muster a support either. Ironholds has my respect for dedication to the project and its ideals. Keegan (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral I would genuinely like to support a quirky sense of humor; but I have two concerns. First, Ironholds would close none of the AfD examples as keep; this gives no idea what he would find keepable. More seriously, he writes of policies as though they were legislation; they aren't; in the words of David Gerard on a related subject, they are Scotch tape and piano wire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)