Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4

Ironholds

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (62/34/11); Scheduled to end 04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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

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

Short statement from co-nom: Ironholds is the first person I have nominated for adminship in my long time on Wikipedia- this nomination just started a few hours before I was ready to write up a statement. Ironholds is intelligent, logical and reasonable. He is someone who is very easy to talk to, and who I would happily trust to deal with any problems. He has contributed a great amount of his time and knowledge to the project, producing excellent articles in his area of expertise as well as doing his bit to maintain the project. I will happily admit that I opposed him in the past, but I now feel that he is more than ready, and has more than demonstrated his commitment to the project. Ironholds is the kind of editor we need more of, and I can't see any reason to assume he will be anything but the perfect administrator. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optional Questions from User:Average White Dork

• Please note that Average White Dork has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Torkmann

4. Do you speak any languages other than English?

A:Bits and bobs in a few others, and I can read and write Latin pretty well, but not really. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

5. If you speak any languages other than English, could you please explain how you will use your language skills to mediate disputes, especially those on nationalistic edit wars?

A:Nope :P.

6. How would you describe how Wikipedia has changed in the time since you first started editing?

A:It's become a lot more.. "firm" is the word I'd use. There are a lot more guidelines, policies and the like, which as an "insider" I consider a good thing; potential users may not. The criteria for adminship have certainly changed, and despite constant hails from the media of our "death", if anything we seem to be increasing in size. Along with this there have been additional automated and semi-automated tools to help out with the new backlogs. In terms of "philosophy" I think we've moved out of the happy, optimistic phase that governed us for the first few years and into a more mature, albeit cynical, one. I'm probably not the best person to ask this, since I mostly kept my head down and away from places where things got Decided until 2008.

7. You edited under the name "O Keyes" for two years before registering the "Ironholds" account. Why did you feel you had to change accounts?

A: Essentially just a fresh start; not to hide from anything, just to hit F5, as it were. Getting my RL name out of general use was also nice (something these darn RfAs keep making rather moot). If it was to hide anything, it'd be a fairly ineffective way of doing things, for the aforementioned reason.

8. One of the early versions of your user page for the "O Keyes" account stated that you had registered an account in late 2005. [4] Since the "O Keyes" account only dates to February 2006, can you please disclose the name of your account prior to you becoming "O Keyes" ?

Comment - The user page states joined, not registered an account. Given that this is a "community" and a project that "anyone can edit", it's quite plausible that simply showing up is considered joined...and even more so 4+ years ago.  Frank  |  talk  14:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A:Sorry; I messed around from some IPs for a bit, editing odd bits and bobs and keeping an eye on the article on my school. I don't recall specific addresses.

9. Do you plan on maintaining your work in article editing and writing if you should become an administrator?

A:Certainly. I thoroughly enjoy my work on articles, as shown by the fact that I'm working on several more at the moment; as Neil Buchanan would've said, here's one I made earlier. I like writing content, and I see no reason to change that if I'm granted the tools. Adminship includes many obligations, but none of them require turning into a semi-automated vandal-killer or the like. I'm not going to be one of "those" admins (for one thing, I can't stand ANI most of the time), I'm going to keep chipping away at my articles and, other than DYK or CSD "when I feel like it", just help out when there's a backlog.

10. Which two articles that you either wrote or heavily contributed to do you feel are the best additions to Wikipedia?

A:As said in Q.1, probably Gray's Inn and Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Not only are they good articles, they're also good articles which didn't have a satisfactory format before I turned my hand to them. I'd rather turn 10 stubs into GAs than 20 B-class articles for this reason; it benefits the wiki far more. With both of those, I took completely unsatisfactory articles and turned them into good 'uns.

11. Have you seen the movie Danger: Diabolik?

A:...no? Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

12. Back in 2008 you claimed that you are both autistic and have asperger's syndrome. [5] Do you still claim that?

A:As opposed to people with aspergers syndrome who don't have a form of autism? :P I've been diagnosed as autistic; first as having Asperger's Syndrome, and then earlier this year as having High Functioning Autism. I maintain it's mild at best, while my partner doesn't think I've got it at all; either way, it's hardly a massive impact on my life.

13. Can you please disclose any and all "bots" that you have operated on Wikipedia through any of your registered accounts?

A:I have never operated bots.

Additional optional questions from Shawn in Montreal

14. Please explains your a7 speedy deletion tagging of Jordan Media City. Specifically, how did this article not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject?"

'A: I'm going to hold my hands up and say "my bad"; I didn't read the article properly. It was 3:28 in the morning (or 4:28? I can never remember if the Wiki's an hour off GMT) and I was probably knackered, something that's entirely my own fault. Luckily, no action on-wiki is permanent (with the exception of oversight, the reversal of which causes tricky technical problems). This doesn't justify my actions, and again, I take full responsibility for the mistagging. I'd like to think that with the exception of getting things right all the time, the best thing to have in an editor is an acceptance of when they've got things wrong.

Questions from  Skomorokh 

15. To what extent if any do you think administrators should be held to a higher standard of behaviour than other editors?

A: This is a difficult one. One the one hand, you could say they shouldn't (after all, adminship is simply technical access; it's constantly denied that it gives additional authority, among other things), and on the other that they should; I tend to go for the second. Admins should be held to a higher standard of behaviour in two areas; editing overall, and use of the admin tools. The latter is not really a "higher standard" as such, simply an area in which admins now have additional responsibilities and standards they did not have as an editor. The former is that the admin's general "tone" of editing should be higher than "normal" editors, as a result of (and reason for) the community's trust in them. I do not expect admins to be perfect, but I do expect them to follow the principle that you should "check your edits help the encyclopedia before hitting 'save page'" more closely than other editors. Sorry if this has come out as rather a confused muddle :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

16. What are your thoughts on the essay "Professionalism" by Kirill Lokshin?

A: It's excellent, and helpfully divides our duties and responsibilities up; duties to the reader, the writer and the subject. I appreciate the BLP points, since I've always considered that both an important and difficult area on the wiki. I think it's more an "in an ideal world..." that what Kirill accurately expects participants to do, but he might be an optimist :P. You're never going to get everyone behaving like that, but I think the wiki would be a far better place if everyone tried. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions from DGG ( talk )

(I realize that mistakes will be made in nominating articles, but I am asking about nominations which might show too rapid a rate to avoid egregious mistakes, or which might show misunderstanding of policy. I'm only mentioning a few, although I can find many more, in order to make the question answerable. )

17. Did you follow WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for prod or AfD in your NP clearance?

A: In most cases; I missed it a few times. WP:BEFORE as a firm step is something that has never really entered my head, which is a failing of mine. I'll make sure to follow it more closely in the future. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

18 If so, how do you explain the nominations of:

1.Golconda Express, heading for a snow keep at AfD.

2. Sergio Sartorelli, where you said "only source is autobio," but where other sources were found.

Note: this article was completely plagiarised and ought to be speedy deleted. Majorly talk 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So it was originally, but I think Col Warden rewrote it. DGG ( talk )

19. With respect to speedy deletion

1. How do the conditions for speedy deletion under condition A3 [6] apply to Starseed (novel), where stub information was presented in an infobox?

An assumption on my part that "no proper content" translates effectively to "no prose". Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A rather common mistake in fact. If infoboxes were meant to not count as content , they would have been included in the list in the A3 guideline. When I see them I just convert to prose, as Col.Warden did here. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2. How does a national-level society like Italian Physical Society qualify for Speedy A7?

Thinking about it now, it doesn't, since WP:ORG normally gives notability to an organisation with national scope - a PROD would have been a better idea. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why you would want to prod something that WP:ORG considered usually notable-- that's almost a bad. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

3. for Regional Input-Output Modeling System, did you consider that a .gov source might be US-PD--as this one actually was. ?

A:I missed the URL like a dolt, as explained in my conversations with the chap who removed the tag. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

4. How is Tensie Whelan blatant spam?

It's written as a professional biography, with an advertisement-style attitude that's big on pushing all the wonderful things she's done while at the same time light on sourcing. Sentences like "As president of the Rainforest Alliance, Whelan works to persuade companies to protect ecosystems and workers' rights through strategic alliances with farmers and a certification process which identifies companies with responsible business practices." and "Whelan works well with major corporations in part because of her background but also because of her own talents. Kraft executive Annemieke Wijn told Joseph Hooper of Elle , "Tensie conveys what she believes in an open, positive way, not in a 'nag the industry' way. And after work, we can have dinner, a glass of wine, and girl talk." Whelan herself told Organic Style , "Some people are dreamers; some implementers. I like to do both."", for example, are spam at its very best. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also plagiarised from here. Whoops. Majorly talk 18:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

and so it is, and should have been speedied on that ground, which is much more definitive than G11. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up Questions from Average White Dork

• Please note that Average White Dork has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Torkmann

20. This is a question in three parts. You say you are a "deletionist." a) Please tell the community what you mean by that, in your own words, and b) also please explain, if you would, why you are a deletionist, and c) how putting into practice the "deletionist" philosophy will be an overall benefit to Wikipedia.

A:I'm not a deletionist. I previously identified as one, yes, but that was a while ago; I'm now rather a moderate, with the exception of BLPs.

21. Above, you admitted to making poorly considered edits to Wikipedia whilst "knackered." With your heightened responsibilities as an administrator, how can you prevent this problem from happening again?

A:Not considering admin-related functions while horribly tired? I don't plan to be an all-out admin in the same way I am a writer and normal editor, so I'd hope that such a situation doesn't arise.

22. Do you ever edit Wikipedia under the influence of alcoholic beverages?

A:No?

23. If so, do you ever edit Wikipedia whilst you are impaired by the alcohol?

A:No.

24. Do you ever edit Wikipedia under the influence of cannabis?

A:No.

25. It is undisputed that you have a beautiful and articulate writing style. (I loved the "Slade Case," by the way). However, your edit summaries are another story. At first, you hardly ever used them, and now that you do, your edit summaries, with all the "bollocks this" and "sod that" [7] language sounds more appropriate for an English football hooligan or Sex Pistols concert than an encyclopedia. How can you reconcile your obviously articulate writing you use for articles with the sort of slang/pseudo profanity with which you like to pepper your edit summaries?

A:I've been using edit summaries for the last two years or so; not sure where you got "hardly ever used them" from. I can occasionally be a bit casual, yes; the meaning behind it is hardly "profanity". There is no need to reconcile two different standards for two different areas; one is for the note of readers, one is for the note of editors. I take different stances, yes, but with two different goals in sight reconciliation is not really required.

26. Could you please explain fully what you mean when you said (in the answer to question 21) that you "don't plan to be an all-out admin . . . " ?

'A:I don't plan to spend every waking moment on admin stuff. Using the tools is going to be something I do when asked specifically, or when there's a backlog that needs clearing, or when I come across something in my daily wiki-work, not the main focus of my activities. I still plan to spend the majority of my time on content work; the Cincinnatus of administrators, if you will, coming out of content "retirement" when needed and going back as soon as whatever the problem is has been dealt with. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

27. a) Please list the three Wikipedia policies or guidelines you most feel should be revisited.

A: WP:BLP, and that's it.

b) For each one you list, please give a brief description why you feel as you do.

A: It's the most sticky, difficult and potentially damaging area of the wiki, and we need to have firmer rules there. I'd like to rewrite certain sections to clarify; requiring sources for all statements, for example.

c) How would you, as an administrator, work to have these policies re-visited or modified?

A: Not any more than I do now. An administrator is given a set of technical tools and obligations, not any greater weight in discussions.

Additional optional questions from Fences and windows

28. You plan to close AfDs. When will you give closing rationales, and why?

A:In any AfD on a potentially controversial matter, or where the margin between merging, deleting and keeping is narrow, or where there are other circumstances which could muddle the AfD such as a high level of sock/meatpuppet/COI involvement, taking particular care in BLP matters.

29. As you plan to close AfDs, how would you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wytheville hostage incident, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Asimov's Robot City: Refuge, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.A.I.L. 4 Judges?

A:1) would be a delete, with no problem with the user recreating it if there are additional developments. WP:NOT#NEWS is a particularly thorny area, since it's vaguely worded, but I don't think one can really claim that 28 news articles equals notability, when you consider that as a hostage situation in a western nation it's particularly likely to get news coverage. 2) Keep; there are sufficient sources to pass WP:BIO, even if there is not the required info for WP:ACADEMIC. While many sources don't talk about him directly, coverage does not have to be direct, only significant, which this appears to be. 3) Merge to the main article on the series, since sources don't give the coverage necessary for a standalone article but are (at the same time) sufficient for content on the matter to appear on WP. 4) Keep, and ideally (myself) stubbify and rewrite. It's mostly a coatrack, but underneath that mass of coats and hoodies is a rack which passes the inclusion guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from DGG ( talk ):

30. I appreciate your patience with all these, but I have another one. In patrolling new pages, is the purpose to tag the ones that need deletion, or also to tag the ones that need major improvements, such as ones without references, or that ought to be merged or redirected or re-titled? To make it specific, consider the following samples from your recent batch:

1. Battlefield 1942 the road to rome

2. Shantia

3. Discharge coefficient

4. Indhar

My intent was to tag them; I have to apologise for some of these ones, in that the tool I was using makes it rather awkward to redirect and hand-tag. I did do so with most of them, but these I missed. Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from IP69.226.103.13

31. Looking at your page patrol log you mark some 10-20 or more articles as patrolled in under a minute, then here's one where in the same minute with 10 other articles, you mark an article for deletion and notify its user.[8]

You patrolled 9 articles,[9] read this one, tagged it for speedy deletion[10] and notified its creator[121570603] all in less than 1 minute? Do you think that you are actually considering articles for deletion when you do this? Do new articles deserve any consideration before nominating for deletion? As an administrator deleting articles nominated for speedy deletion do articles require actual looking at by the deleting administrator? Do you think there can be problems if administrators don't actually look at articles they are deleting? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A:not sure the point of posing questions when you've !voted, but.. :p. An admin should spend more time looking at deletions than a tagger, and as an admin I'd do that. I was tagging things very fast, yes; if you look at the method with which I did it, you'd see I'm using a new, experimental tool called kissle which loads the page with patrol, move, edit and tag functions, hence the speed. I resent the " do articles require actual looking at by the deleting administrator" point, in that I see it as an implied insult that I haven't actually looked at articles. Please feel free to slap me down if it's meant differently. Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

At some point you have to read the article in order to make a decision about what tag is appropriate, if any, for nominating it for deletion as an editor, and for deleting it as an administrator. You have to decide, if the article has any chance of remaining, if it could use clean-up or tags or references or something else. In other, words, imo, you have to read the article. You have tags on talk pages and on the article page, and 9 other articles marked as patrolled in that same 1 minute. I think it's a fair question, did you read the articles you patrolled, is that even required of patrolling? I don't actually know. It doesn't seem to be. Do administrators bear a responsibility to read articles while non-administrator editor actions don't? If you don't want to answer questions because I voted (although you answered the above question after the editor voted, which is why it occurred to me to just ask) you don't have to. It's purely optional. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke (see the little :P sign) although, I appreciate, not a very good one. Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As the person who wrote Kissle, I would note that the version of Kissle Ironholds used for patrolling does most of the edits (and patrols) asynchronously. It's possible that the articles/minute rate was inflated due to this. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

32.What is your opinion on "cool down blocks"?

A:They're to be avoided, as policy says; in my experience, they're likely to rile the person as much as they are to calm him or her down. Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional questions from Average White Dork (AWD) Note: user has been blocked as sock puppet.[11] I'm really tired of sock puppets participating in processes when they've established they don't want to be part of the community.

33. Since the issue has been brought up several times in your RFA discussion already, could you please explain what the "Law/The Undertow" incident was? Please tell us what happened -- your side of the story, as it were.

A:I'd rather not; 1) it's an arbitration matter, although not one where I was a subject, and 2) any evidence to back up either side of the story is in the form of IRC logs and the like, which it is not permissible to vote. Any statement I'd make would be unverifiable, and thus essentially worthless. Ironholds (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

34. What is your opinion on whether Wikpedia should have ads or not? In your response please state your rationale behind the opinion.

A:Wikipedia should not have ads. Our entire point is that we are here to build a neutral encyclopedia answerable to nobody but the laws of our home state. The use of advertisements may give the impression that we are endorsing or biased towards a particular viewpoint or organisation, something we strive not to be. We have survived perfectly well without advertisements, with a more successful fundraiser this year than ever before, and I see no reason to cheapen the encyclopedia and risk losing both contributors and readers when there is no good reason to do so.

35. Should paid editing be open and permitted? Please state why or why not.

A:It should not. Paid editing is essentially the same as editing with a conflict of interest, and the rationale there applies here; it sways ones judgement, it is detrimental to the neutral tone of the encyclopaedia and paid editing can cause an incompatibility between the goals of the individual (making some moola) and the goals of the encyclopedia. I do appreciate our way of enforcing any anti-paid editing policy is rather limited.

36. Do you advocate any "governance" reform of Wikipedia's Arb-com or administrative corpus? Please state your rationale in this matter as well.

A:I'd like to see a larger ArbCom, to be honest; I feel if the committee was split into real "tranches" of eight, we could deal with the cases quicker. If we were to expand the committee to 24, we could have two teams of 10, each working on a single case, and a team of four doing the subcommittee work, leading to a more efficient layout which would then rotate every four months or so.

37. Are you open to "recall" if you are appointed administrator?

A:This is a tricky one. I am open to recall, but I appreciate there's little way to enforce it. In my last RfA I demonstrated my desire to secure a working method, but this wasn't successful. Nevertheless, I remain recall-able if approved.

38. If so, please post the terms under which you will consent to recall.

A:If three editors in good standing say that there is a problem with my use of the admin tools, and if this problem is confirmed by an administrator or other trusted community figure unrelated to the three editors or the dispute, I will immediately stand for a reconfirmation RfA.

39. If not, please state the rationale behind your aversion to recall.

A:

40. Do you consider Jimbo Wales's current role to be too little, too much, or just about right? Please state your rationale likewise.

A: Just enough. His current role is virtually nil anyway; other than a public face, he does little work, which is how it should be. Some of his duties (relating to ArbCom elections, for example) could probably be performed by a Foundation representative, but I don't see anything he (really) does, other than the public advocacy, to be capable of causing harm to the wiki, and that's the only real concern one should have.

41. Please explain your answer with question #22 (concerning your use of alcoholic beverages whilst editing).

A:Er... same as it says on the box, dude. I don't edit while consuming, enema-ing, snorting or under the influence of any form of alcohol, nor any narcotic excluding nicotine and caffeine.

42. In question #27(b), you stated that you advocate a policy for WP:BLP that would require sourcing for all statements contained in an article. As an administrator, would you consider deleting a BLP that did not have the requisite sourcing?

A:No, because advocating implies it isn't already there. To do so would be to go directly against policy and consensus. Ironholds (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk, courtesy of Caspian blue. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think that Ironholds' CSD work needs to be put in context. In the last four days, Ironholds has patrolled almost 3900 pages. And there are quite a few redlinks in there. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • To put that in perspective, Wikipedia grows at about 1300 articles a day.[12] NW (Talk) 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reviewing this log, it seems that each article was getting about 3 seconds of attention during the early hours of the morning. This stunt seems of little value if it was just a perfunctory glance as this is insufficient time to do a proper job. I just browsed the list looking for frauds or hoaxes and it didn't take long to find one - Crab collars - which seems to have been passed as patrolled. I have now sent this to AFD, having taken the time to search for sources and scan them. This can't be done in 3 seconds. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't understand this, he's marking sometimes 20+ articles a minute as patrolled. What does it mean that an article is "patrolled?" That he clicked it? Still pretty fast. But not useful. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 00:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The article is marked so that other new page patrollers will not see it. The new page patrol is set up so that you can review articles by age, allowing the creators time to work upon them. The result of clearing the backlog is that any new article will now be too quickly patrolled as the backlog is now only minutes old. I tried patrolling an article just now (Structured note) and had trouble with edit conflicts. The process is designed to have a backlog of many days and eliminating this seems to be disruptive as new article creators and patrollers will get in each others' way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not the way the system has been designed at all. To imply that we should leave new pages a couple of days before dealing with them as appropriate is ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Totally echo J Milburn here. It might be how some people are operated it due to the massive backlog, but that just shows the length of time it was broken. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Colonel Warden, that's not how the system works; thats how it ended up working after it broke. Still, I never thought I'd see someone complain that a) there's no backlog and b) there are too many people working on something, but there we go. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't User:Average White Dork's questions be removed as contributions by an indefinitely blocked user? Robofish (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of them are perfectly valid questions. If they were !votes, yes, they'd be summarily removed, but I don't particularly object to most of the questions (even the stupid ones the candidate has addressed/dismissed well enough). It's simply not a very big deal (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • They don't really bother me, to be honest. At the end of the day, some of them are valid questions (recall springs to mind), and are likely to be asked; it is counter-productive to remove them and have to answer something along the same lines all over again. Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

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

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

   What do you mean by incompetent? This support is confusing. So is the comment from IShadowed, who said such nice things about the candidate in his/her own support. — Mr. Van Tine (t – c) 11:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's called WP:HUMOR, I believe. Sometimes people know other editors very well, and have interacted with them a lot (they may even be "friends"). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

    Your view on the incident is yours, not mine. Your bashing about my assessment being "utterly ridiculous" looks reversely "ridiculous" in my view.--Caspian blue 05:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

    I tweaked my words.--Caspian blue 05:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ah, right. Well, since the events have passed I've seen all the logs and spoken with all involved parties. I got desysopped over the incident, mind you. If Ironholds had done something wrong, one would think I'd be pissed he wasn't part of the RFAR. He exposed a sockpuppet admin. And Daniel's comment on Ironholds' talk page is not something to hold Ironholds accountable for. Lara ☁ 05:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    While I steamed a bit about your comment in regard to my opposition, I'll respectfully disagree with your view.--Caspian blue 06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Okay, you steamed, but you used the legal term "blackmail" and you have zero evidence to support that claim, yet you stand by it. What was he demanding? Lara ☁ 06:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ha, you should get the fact straight and please be civil. I never used "such term" as you're falsely accusing. Zero evidence to support his behavior? If you can prove that the IRC log and comments including yours and the involved people's left on the offwiki site of which you're an active member are all "lies", then I will consider retracting my comment (not vote).--Caspian blue 06:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not intending to come off uncivil. Not sure where I did. Anyway, my apologies for stating you used "blackmail"; I see now that Ironholds did. You simply claimed "manipulation", but provide no evidence, instead directing people to one of the longest threads in WR history. You request he prove he abides by the civility policy, but you give no examples of incivility while basing your comments on behavior from more than nine months ago. As for the logs, some have been proven as either taken out of context or altered. Regardless, it's all off-wiki, so what exactly do you think he should be admonished for? His "POV" was the one backed by a policy, and the page currently sits at the title he requested. Lara ☁ 07:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Here, evidence for his incivility Wikipedia talk:Automatic Adminship. (I can't post the offwiki thread or IRC log as evidences). I did not necessarily feel to prevent evidences for his such behavior since that was well mentioned in his past RFAs. Ironholds should've used WP:RM instead of pushing Law to follow his demand on IRC. As long as off-wiki affairs affects onwiki, it matters. The off-wiki feud led to expose the whole incident.--Caspian blue 08:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Judging him from his last RFA to now, he's improved significantly. This single incident from six months ago is, in my opinion, debatable as far as incivility goes. He expressed an opinion many people share; the evidence is common-knowledge. But more importantly, you seem to be suggesting that this Law/undertow incident was some awful thing that is Ironholds' fault. Do you believe it's A Bad Thing that Law was revealed as a sockpuppet of a banned user? Lara ☁ 08:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    I don't believe that "that" is a single isolated or last case on Ironhold's incivility because of his feuding with The_undertow three month ago. The Law incident gives me many doubts about Ironhold's abilities as a potential admin. As for your question, I feel really funny to receive the question from you. I of course think the whole orchestrated lying and deceiving people for months are totally unacceptable. However, the most despicable thing in the whole incident is the way the secrecy was revealed.--Caspian blue 08:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Hey, I'm just here to entertain, so I'm glad you're amused. It's interesting to me that you believe Ironholds telling Daniel that Law was a sockpuppet admin was worse than "the whole orchestrated lying and deceiving people for months" part. Lara ☁ 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

12. Heck yes. Ironholds has a good outlook and is both humorous and focused at the same time. His content work is excellent, he's dedicated, and I think he'll make a fine administrator. ceranthor 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Ironholds has grown up since the third RfA. He's got a lot of clue, he's a brilliant content writer, and he's got a good attitude that's jovial but at the same time comforting. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Support-per ceranthor, Triplestop and others. --Zvn (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Strong Support - And a happy new year! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Per NW's nomination. Daniel (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Support per consistent positive contributions including (but certainly not limited to) clearing out the Newpage patrol backlog singlehandedly. Also per User:Ironholds/Awards and the recent lack of incivility (which messed up his last RfA). I know he has a few (<10 out of a 100?) declined speedies, but compared to the magnitude of PRODs, AfDs, and speedies he's tagged in the last few days, I don't much care. And finally (not like I need more reasons) he is one of the more clueful editors around. I trust him with the tools, so I support. Aditya Ex Machina 09:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    I just read Caspian blue's oppose, and I believe it is extremely childish and immature. To oppose on the basis of IRC logs that you've never seen, and a WR thread (of all places) is absolutely ridiculous. And then to say Anyway, I opposed you last time for your too eagerness to get the tool and incivility, so you can not change my mind unless you prove strong evidence that you're not. [13] is frankly extremely pathetic (especially since it's been over 9 months since the previous RfA), and I get the feeling (as do many others, I'm sure) that Caspian's just fishing for a reason to oppose. Aditya Ex Machina 10:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Adity, I don't even what to say about your "pathetic" reliance on such WP:personal attacks. Sadly, your comment directly shows who you're. I firmly believe the closing 'crat well take care of your "extremely mature" and "grown-up"-like vote. Enjoy your WP:TROUT caught in your bait. :-)-Caspian blue 16:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Enjoy my WP:TROUT caught in my bait? Uh-huh. You have absolutely outmaneuvered me with your legendary wit, Caspian. I am speechless. Aditya Ex Machina 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

18. Definitely. I supported last time, and if this doesn't pass, I'll support next time. A great great benefit to the project overall, and can certainly get his head around complex issues that plague ANI and similar. GedUK  10:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
19. —Dark 12:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Strong support BejinhanTalk 13:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Strong support. I did actually intend to be a conominator here, but I chose to go to bed instead. Is it too late to add a nomination statement? Ironholds is intelligent, logical and mature, has a sense of humour, and is someone with whom it is easy to interact. All of these are extremely positive traits in an administrator. Further, he has a solid knowledge of a classically encyclopedic topic, and uses this knowledge to write great articles. He has a real commitment to the project, as shown by his article writing and his recent achievement with new page patrolling. Ironholds would have been the first person I nominated to adminship in my two and a half years of adminship- I just genuinely feel he is close to the perfect candidate. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Feel free to add a conomination statement; I have no issue with it. NW (Talk) 17:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

22. Support. No problems here; should have been appointed earlier. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Support—I have always found Ironholds to be a committed, organised and approachable editor. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
24. In one episode of Newsradio, Matthew takes a magic pill and becomes super-intelligent. When someone objects that he now seems to prefer reading books upside-down, he replies, "If you've never read 4 books at once, then don't tell me how to do it." I'm not going to tell Ironholds that he's clearing out the NPP queue too fast, or writing too many articles. If someone can point to actual mistakes, fine. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
25. Strong support excellent contributor and I trust him thoroughly to use the extra buttons with discretion and ever-growing skill. Bencherlite^Talk 17:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Support While noting the opposers' concerns, I see insufficient evidence to cause me concerns about this candidate at this time. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Support - I can understand where some of the opposers have come from, but I do believe that IH has the ability to learn, first of all, and secondly that he has demonstrated that ability in the improvements made to his attitudes. He will do well and, more importantly, be fair. I've known him to rather activly avoid any potential CoI, which is a fear some have with admins, and he has also gone to other people for opinions on things many times, showing his ability and desire to build consensus as well as an appreciation that admins are, shockingly, humans and not miracle computers that are always right. Providing he sticks his feet to the ground, he will be a great admin. Just no-one tell him I said that. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Support Ironholds isn't to everybody's taste which I believe is to his favour. RMHED (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
29. With more then 40,000 edits, there's no reason not to support this editor. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
30. No concerns whatsoever. Majorly talk 18:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Support See no problems. — JoJo • Talk • 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Support: Ja good. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
33. Absolutely, fine user.  GARDEN  20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
34. I opposed last time, and I think the time before, but I'm sure that Ironholds is ready for the mop now and will not use it as a badge and gun as I feared before. He has sufficient clue. Keegan (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Support As for the missing Latin knowledge "Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" should help. Collect (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Interactions have been mostly positive. Soxwon (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Support I had a bit of an issue with the way he handled the Law/undertow thing, but nobody is perfect. If the community was a bit more accepting of a few mistakes, I think it would be a better site. I generally trust Ironholds to do the right thing, and I think he'd be a great admin. Killiondude (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Support - Thought he already was one. Shadowjams (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. I've supported this candidate twice before, in June 2008 and in October 2008. I think Ironholds will be a good admin. — Athaenara ✉ 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
40. I had this whole long (albeit stupid) oppose written out, and after finishing it I realized I had just written a support. I'm not wild about his comments about other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno (both on the project and project talk page). I wish he used more and better edit summaries ("r" makes me wince). And, although I applaud him a thousand times over for his recent WP:NPP efforts, some of the taggings, as noted elsewhere, leave something to be desired (although arguably they are a drop in the bucket and well within the range of acceptable mistakes given his volume). Still, his comments and efforts all over the place are of extremely high quality, and I trust him to take a lot out of this and to be more careful when deleting than when clearing a backlog. I just spent about an hour looking for something to really, truly tick me off and it's simply not there. Over the past year I have found myself double-checking to see he isn't a sysop at least a half-dozen times, so I'd say it's time. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Comment - This hits the nail on the head. I expected some issue that would bug me too, but over this tremendous a career, I don't see it. The typical CSD-based opposes jump on board, but that's not new. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

41. Strong Support per the nominators. I really don't think there should be a question whether he will be a net positive. Seems obvious to me. upstateNYer 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
42. As always. Nathan ^T 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Support mostly per Amory (#40 currently). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
44. Strong support Trust him absolutely.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Hard working. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
46. Strongest possible Support Per nom. Deo Volente! ++/7107delicious (Gespräch)\++ 04:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Good luck. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
48. Net positive. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
49. Support There are many attacks on this user's "temperament" and "civility". This is constantly being used as an unfair ploy to block certain people from becoming admins even though such accusations seem to always be unfounded. There is nothing wrong this user's behavior and they should be given a fair chance.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    This is probably a POINTy vote, given this user's recent crusade on WT:RFA and other pages. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    No it is not. Please sir do not make false accusations against me and please do not imagine in your own mind what my intentions are. Please kindly treat with me respect as I do to you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

50. Support - I see this user as a net positive to the project, and thus support. Ale_Jrb^2010! 11:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
51. Support for having the patience to deal with so many questions from Average White Dork. Ironholds' responses are quite civil and sincere. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
52. Support Looks fine to me. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
53. Strong Support Know the editor in question to be responsible and skilled, with the good of the project at heart always. Find opposes utterly unconvincing. IH's body of work and edits is strong, and a few instances of wry British snark are absolutely not equivalent to incivility. FlyingToaster 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
54. Support I know from watching other RfAs that anyone who almost loses because of an issue will be extremely careful once they pass their RfA. Hence, I think it is very, very, unlikely that (should this request pass) Ironholds will immediately jump into CSD with gusto deleting everything in sight. That aside, I believe that Ironholds has a real desire to improve this project, and I have no question that he will do what he truly believes to be the right thing to do. We need more admins who are willing to set aside "political" considerations to just do the right thing for its own sake. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    I clearly agree, and I like the implication that being heartily opposed can go a long way toward combating those very opposes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

55. Support per my colleague just above. henrik•talk 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
56. Support — I've seen this user about over time doing good, so no worries; impressed by the above, not by the oppose section. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
57. Strong Support. A very firm familiarity with the project, and a user who could certainly benefit from the mop (and the project from the arrangement). I have personally seen through our interactions that he doesn't always try to be a crowd-pleaser and stands by his convictions, which is a great positive in my view, and tries hard to maintain a high standard and help those who need or request it. He is an efficient and trust-worthy editor with my full support. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
58. Strong Support. Absolutely. Fight the broken RfA system and support this obviously qualified candidate. Tan | 39 17:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
59. I think Ironholds is a very productive and strong editor. I am pleased to support his candidacy. Acalamari 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
60. Support Nobody's perfect, least of all us New Page Patrollers. It's not unusual at all to have a fraction of our CSD taggings declined, nor is it unusual for our PROD tags to be contested. While Ironholds did tag some articles in the new-page backlog incorrectly, and while some of his AfD nominations weren't the strongest, I think it's helpful to look at them in context. Ironholds patrolled so many pages at the end of 2009 that the incorrect taggings are actually a small fraction. Like J.delanoy above, I trust Ironholds to approach the delete button cautiously as an administrator, and I do trust him to do the right thing. Therefore, I share the concerns that SoWhy, F&W, and DGG voice, but I don't think they are enough to prevent me from supporting. Ironholds' involvement in the Law incident does not bother me; let's not forget that it was The undertow who was truly in the wrong, engaging in ban evasion. I also firmly reject the notion that eliminating the unpatrolled backlog at Special:NewPages is a bad thing. Finally, Ironholds is a terrific content contributor, with 4 FAs, 13 FLs, 13 GAs, and 122 DYK credits, which is always a big enough plus in my book that I am moved to support this RfA. The entire body of Ironholds' work outweighs a few mistaggings, in my opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
61. Support No worries from me. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
62. Strong Support Ironholds is a real person, he makes mistakes, he does not always phrase his non-content contributions in the most temperate language possible and he may even, horror of horrors, have occasionally tagged some of the hundreds of new page articles he single handedly patrolled in a way that was with ( to quote Lord Denning) with the benefit of rose-tinted spectacles, not the most correct tag amongst many - but here is the thing, he is a truly prolific content contributor and everyday he makes wikipedia a better, more stylish, more comprehensive resource. In my estimation administrator tools would be a be a valuable help in his work - he contributes so much to the project that a few disputes might have been inevitable and do not in my view in any way suggest he would not help make wikipedia a (much) more valuable resource if given admin access - which at the end of the day is the most important standard for anyone to be judged by. As a disclaimer,User:Ironholds is one of only a very few other UK law contributors to wikipedia, and as a UK law student I particularly value his work in that regard so maybe that is a COI to some users, but i hope not Ajbpearce (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Although I highly respect the nominating admin (I really do), I have to oppose the candidate strongly as possible. I've expected Ironholds would run for adminship again some after people may forget about the User:Law/User:The_undertow incident. I felt absurd at that time for the fact that he was not a subject of any single warning or admonishment given for his backchannelling and manipulating to get favorable result for his POV via IRC and retaliation. While User:Daniel who was equally in charge of leading the disgraceful incident and other involved people got the consequence, he was not. Moreover, he has failed to prove that he abides by the civility policy such as Wikipedia talk:Automatic Adminship ( ^{a notable example added since people thirst for "evidence". The whole page shows well how poor grasp of WP:NPA and WP:Civility Ironholds has by engaging in such behaviors regardless of repeated warning to him.16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC))} I don't see why we need to add a potential admin to abuse the admin tool with the disgraceful demeanor.--Caspian blue 04:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Woah, woah. Caspian never gave any accusations of blackmail. "Them's fightin' words", you could say, and I'm really thinking that's not the direction anyone wants to go right now. Off-wiki civility can technically be relevant, as ArbCom recently gave modern precedent on as part of the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list final decision. Though generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions it can be discussed if having a damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community. The catch-all term used is "serious misconduct" which is one of those phrases where if you ever have to ask if something was bad enough to be considered it, that it's probably already too late to help yourself. Even before this, common sense to civility has never been something encouraged to be thrown aside or given a rubber stamp so long as it's not on a Foundation server. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose He seems to be doing good work at articles such as William Garrow, which is a fine choice of topic, but his approach to new article patrolling seems too casual and intemperate, indicating a lack of the measured and mature approach which we expect of an admin. This recent spree attracted my attention and so I looked at some of the PRODs and did not find them satisfactory. When one of the PRODs was challenged - Golconda Express - his response was to immediately escalate to AFD rather than engaging in discussion at the article per our deletion process. His nomination and comments in this AFD seem over-opinionated rather than addressing the sources and so I fear that he would use admin powers as a means of his expressing his own strong opinions. His recent edit summaries include "Wrong place, matey", "bollocks", "sod it" and "listen to a bit of The Clash". These seem too loutish and so may too easily be taken as uncivil. Behaviour of this sort during RFA does not seem acceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Considering the fact that Golconda Express was rather unceremoniously de-prodded via WikiCleaner without providing any rationale whatsoever,[14] I'd say taking it straight to AfD is rather reasonable. I also fail to see how discussion at the article would have gotten anything accomplished; the article has less than 30 people watching it,[15] so the discussion likely wouldn't have gone anywhere. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   The article was not deprodded via WikiCleaner - you seem to be misreading your diff. I worked normally upon the article, adding a source, The Great Trains, which tells us that this train achieved a significant speed record. It should not be necessary to spell out the significance of this fact as it speaks plainly to the notability of the topic. To instantly escalate to another forum when thwarted seems a sign of petulant willfulness and Ironholds seems to have a history of behaving in this way. The number of editors watching the article is not a meaningful statistic as it is a new article which was only created a few days ago by a new editor who started in November. This and other cases indicate that 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. He should please stick to the work that he is best suited for. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Hmm, looks like I did indeed jump to a confusion on that diff; my apologies. However, I still don't share your attitude about the entire thing. Personally, I prefer someone removing a prod to explain (on the talk page or in the edit summary) why they disagree with the prod; for him to "instantly escalate" is perfectly reasonable, in my estimation (though also perfectly reasonable is the expectation that he'd ask you directly; my only objection here is your insistence that taking it straight to AfD was the absolute wrong course of action). My comment about the number of editors watching the article was only to address your insistence that discussion happen on the talk page; it most certainly is a meaningful statistic, as discussions with one or two editors is hardly going to bring about much of anything productive. One could argue that the article is far better for having gone to AfD than had he simply let the prod tag be deleted; since doing so, another three sources have been added to the article[16] (this is a result of there being far more eyes on AfDs than on new articles). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Regretful Oppose I like Ironholds and as such it is not easy for me to be in this section. Ironholds is a great contributor to this project and his article writing skills are without doubt making this project a better place. Sadly, his approach to speedy deletion is too aggressive in my opinion and shows an apparent lack of understanding when it comes to our speedy deletion policy. I know he is very active at NPP and as such does thousands of taggings, which is commendable but if he approaches deletions the same way if this request passes, I fear it will lead to many incorrect deletions and thus to the biting of a lot of newbies. To cite some examples (all within the last 4 days): A3 on article which had a infobox with non-trivial information (twice) (WP:CSD#A3 explicitely excludes such articles), A7 with claims of importance, A7 with multiple claims of importance, A7 with claims of importance (and 190+ GNews hits), A7 on manga artist where the manga has its own article and is award-winning, G12 where copyvio could have been removed easily, A7 with claims of importance and reliable source, A7 for organisation that initiated notable projects, G11 on non-spam article, A7 with claims of importance. Similarly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golconda Express as mentioned by Colonel Warden above which currently has only "keep" !votes and which looks like Ironholds forgot WP:BEFORE also shows a skewed approach to deletion. Again, I have great respect for Ironholds' contributions to the project but currently I have to say that I don't trust him with the delete button. Sorry... Regards SoWhy 17:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   In regards to Ryūhei Tamura, being the assistant to a chap who wrote something that's award-winning doesn't (in my mind) really show notability. Other than that I'll keep schtum to avoid falling foul of badgering. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   I agree but it also links to Beelzebub (manga) which in turn says that Ryūhei Tamura wrote it and that it's award winning. Regards SoWhy 17:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Ack, didn't see that. My bad *facepalm*. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose Enough excuses. This is seems to be part of a pattern of sloppy CSD work. I have grave doubts about entrusting him with the delete button, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
5. (edit conflict) Oppose – This is only the sixth RfA for this user, I guess we should wait for the seventh. --Aitias (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Very mature, thanks.  GARDEN  20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   It should be noted that Ironholds was one of several users who supported Aitias' desysopping, and that during Ironholds' last RfA, Aitias returned from a "vanish" to oppose him. Acalamari 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Garden, just ignore it. This is the kind of thing ArbCom warned Aitias not to do. Moreover, it looks like a revenge vote for this, which led to this. In any case, the closing bureaucrat will know what to do with this vote. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose Seems to have unreliable knowledge of deletion policy--or perhaps goes to fast to think about it properly, which leads to the same bad results. Absolutely do not trust with the deletion button. Those who support should review some of his nominations. Giving an excuse for poor deletions as "Luckily, no action on-wiki is permanent" shows indifference to new contributors. More important than any of this is the poor judgment in trying to accomplish good things by taking on too much work. It would have been much more realistic for him to propose the clearance as a mujltiperson project over the holidays. I'd gladly have done one or two thousand, which is all that I would dream of attempting to do properly in a week. If I try to do more than 50 or 100 at a time, I see so much junk that I too tend to judge inaccurately. I've learned my limitation. Ironholds should learn his, and be able to show it with a cleaner record of admin-related activity . I need to explain that I think many of his noms were fine, even some of the ons that have been contested--I've already supported a few, and intend to support some others. And of course I have the highest possible respect for his work as an editor. Bur that does not necessarily carry over into admin work. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   I did propose it as a multiperson project :p. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   I reviewed some nominations, and obviously not all are correct. But we're not looking for perfection here. I'd rather someone tagged a poor article for deletion, rather than finding any excuse to keep it. You are aware that one two of the examples in your questions were complete copyvios? It helps to check sources rather than just point to them saying that a web page exists with the phrase on. Poorly written computer translations, plagiarism, copyvios, bad writing etc are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and it does not help when inclusionists pile on to keep such things without any care. Majorly talk 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   right. I would never oppose someone for scattered incorrect nominations. I would for ones that show serious misunderstandings of policy. I would for ones that show a tendency to work too fast with automated tools or otherwise. I would for working too fast for the community to follow up on and check--I need to check how many articles that should have been nom'd for deletion ware missed in the opposite direction, which is just as problematic, but harder to identify as it's a much longer list. As for those copyvios, I think one may have been fixed--I too should have caught the other one while looking. As I;ve said, the real problem is not the errors, but the overenthusiastic manner of working--an admin who goes too fast can do an immense amount of damage. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, this I don't get. Your issue is that of how ever many new pages patrolled, he had some errors and this means he was over enthusiastic, which is somehow bad? I wish we had more admins who were enthusiastic, maybe then we wouldn't constantly see the build up of backlogs in most wikipedia systems. It is usually only by one or two admins/editors being 'over enthusiastic' that these backlogs are dealt with and it is a rather essential job. Part of me wonders, if people have such issues with how Ironholds handled the 3900 or so articles on backlog, why didn't they do it? We need to stop expecting infalability of our admins. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose per sloppy CSD taging here [17] (just 2 days ago...). RP459 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Hardly sloppy, considering it's a blatant copyvio. Majorly talk 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Seconded, that was an obvious copyvio. It's deleted now, so perhaps you should review your !vote. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   It was tagged as G11 are you trying to tell me that the article should have been speedy deleted as tagged? RP459 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Right, I'm not biting my tongue here. Are you seriously telling me that the reviewing admin should decline the speedy because it wasn't tagged properly and then let it sit as a blatant copyright violation just to follow the form? I've been an administrator on this website for three years, and that is one of the most ridiculous process wonk arguments I've ever read in an RfA. "Not the right tag!" Good grief, says Charlie. Keegan (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   Don't think that's what RP459 is saying at all, and I'm sure s/he would agree with you that it is now in its rightful place, and that, had tedder realized it was a copyvio, it would've been deleted under that rationale at first go. RP459 is just trying to point out that Ironholds' G11 tag was, technically, wrong and that, presumably, if Ironholds had known it was a copyvio, he would've tagged it as such. Big deal for some, not a big deal for others. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   Amorymeltzer is correct in no way am I saying that the article should not be deleted as a copyvio but only that I do not trust this user whose stated intention is to work in CSD to exercise his judgment correctly as an admin when he cannot tag an article correctly for speedy deletion. He tagged it as (db-spam) G11 incorrectly (only 2 days ago so we are talking current pattern here) had he tagged it as a copyvio I would not have pointed out this edit as it would have been correctly tagged. RP459 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   My apologies for misunderstanding you. What I would like to point out is that the tagging is ultimately irrelevant. As an administrator, I don't have to use CSD tags anymore; therefore, I doubt I would tag half of the articles "properly". Doesn't mean they aren't speedy candidates. No matter, that's splitting hairs. Happy New Year. Keegan (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose - I feel kind of bad since I've supported Ironholds in the past for some great contributions to the project. However, I'm noticing some dodgy CSD work, and since he is particularly active at NPP, it's a nagging concern. I don't think I'm quite ready to see him with the delete button. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I'm willing to reconsider this, but the lack of care taken over deletion makes me unwilling for Ironholds to be an admin yet (although this is their 7th RfA). As well as some of the examples pointed out by DGG (such as nominating Italian Physical Society, a national science society, for speedy deletion), Ironholds' AfD nominations are sometimes poorly thought through, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish-Lebanese relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political uprisings of 1968. I don't think this editor makes much effort at sourcing or considering alternatives to deletion before nominations, so I worry for how they would close debates. A pledge to follow WP:BEFORE is good, but I'd rather see a change in practice before they become an admin. Also, use of insults such as "crap", "gtfo", "bullshit" in edit summaries is not behaviour I want to see from an admin:[18][19][20] Fences&Windows 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's not just deletion that's an issue with his NPPing: Pay as you go car insurance was marked by Ironholds as patrolled without making a single improvement to this unwikified, unreferenced, orphaned microstub. Must try harder. Fences&Windows 20:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not one of those is really an insult, as not one is aimed at a user, rather he is attacking the content, which - let's face it - is quite aptly described by his summaries. Informality need not be indicative of a lack of maturity, and I don't even find them particularly BITEy now that I think of it. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose. It's too easy when patrolling new pages to tag for speedy almost on autopilot, without doing the necessary checking. Same for AfD. It would seem that Ironholds gets into that "open-new-article-tag-for-deletion-open-next-article" groove rather easily. There's also some issues of civility. The community is (rightly) quick to admonish users for a lack of civility, I see no reason to award this user by giving them admin rights. That said of course, Ironholds content work is often superb, and when he reins in these other tendencies he'd probably be a great admin. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Strong oppose per DGG: "Seems to have unreliable knowledge of deletion policy--or perhaps goes to fast to think about it properly, which leads to the same bad results. Absolutely do not trust with the deletion button." You called "End of Active Service" a "non-notable neologism"[21] possibly to avoid running through the million google hits about it, or doing any research. It's not a "neologism" because you personally have not heard of it, that's not what "neologism" means. I think that administrators are more useful if they serve community consensus rather than personal biases. If you think just because you have not heard of something, even if there are a million google hits on it, speedy deletion or a prod is fine, then you will simply act in the same way as an administrator, deleting and prodding subjects which don't interest you or about which your knowledge is limited. I don't see an encyclopedia array of personal knowledge attached to your edits. I do see (predicting future now) pages of AN/Is about you in your first weeks as an administrator, followed by an RFC/Arbcom/defrocking. Let's just call it quits, now. Prod the RfA, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Week Oppose per SoWhy. Sorry, but if you comeback in a few months (June perhaps?) Im sure that you'll pass. Good luck!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose - per SoWhy. It will be good to Request another Requests for Adminship in late-May or Mid-June. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Strong oppose Ironholds is NOT neutral. One of the vital qualifications for being an admin, IMHO, is being relatively objective. I interacted with Ironholds in a RFC for an editor, where he dismissed legitimate concerns by calling them "crap", without properly reviewing evidence. I dont know if he's changed. But we need admins who are relatively objective and who can look at evidence without dismissing them. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Could you post the edit in question? RP459 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    This is his initial edit: [22]. Later (still ignoring legitimate concerns): [23]. Result of the RfC:[24]. Conclusion: Ironholds wasnt neutral and objective enough to be an admin. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    I believe he's referring to this. I reviewed the evidence carefully, and a few points: 1) that was in April, 2) "neutrality" in editor disputes is irrelevant to adminship, since I've got no interest in dispute resolution and admins are no more weighted in DR than editors and 3) I was fairly neutral. Collect can tell you himself that we've had our disputes, but neutrality is about putting such disputes aside to objectively examine the situation. Not being relatively objective would have been if I'd let my past interactions taint my attitude towards the RfC. Ironholds (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    If you have no interest in dispute resolution, I withdraw my opposition. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Oh please Phoenix of9, you guys were using "evidence" that was crap of the highest degree (comments that didn't address Collect, comments from editors who weren't even informed of the RFC, and comments that were misrepresented due to your ignorance of the situation). Ironholds was simply calling it like he saw it. Soxwon (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose, per concerns raised by DGG and Fences&Windows, don't need another insulting admin with a too-quick deletion trigger-finger. Dreadstar ☥ 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Strongest oppose possible as per Fences and windows. Complete lack of care in AFD nominations. Ikip 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong oppose Very serious concerns about behavior, civility and judgment. Ironholds has often been confrontational in including in as a big part of the Law/ Undertow disruption when his off-site feuding and threats against another Wikipedian brought on Wikipedia. This is absolutely not the type of confrontational behavior and disruption we should be encouraging from admins. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose Though he seems to do a lot of good work, my lasting impression of Ironholds is this response during one of the TV schedule AFDs. Now, I can understand someone not being familiar with any TV historians; we all have gaps in our knowledge. But the fact that he couldn't even consider the possibility suggests a lack of imagination that I really don't want to see in anyone with deletion tools. I was also bothered by the way he cherry-picked a few TV schedule AFDs here to cite a precedent for deletion, even though the admins closing those debates were not doing so in a consistent fashion. (Several TV schedules were actually kept, as I pointed out here, but no one bothered to respond. We probably should have had a DRV, but Ironholds just plowed ahead with the AFDs.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. I hate to oppose on a holiday and so will not make an elaborate oppose paragraph as I usually would, but sufficient concerns have been raised to give me pause. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose Looking at all the diffs posted, although I can't see most of the CSD ones, I have concerns about your deletion policy knowledge and the fact that you seem to want to delete things before thoroughly reviewing them, a trait I don't feel comfortable with in an admin. Perhaps if you can get your "deltionitis" under control, I would feel confident in supporting you in a future RfA. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose, Ironholds is a net benefit to the project, but too many rather elementary errors at CSD. I'm not comfortable giving him the delete button at this point in time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC).
21. Oppose too sloppy with tagging and AfD. Basically per So Why, CW, and DGG. I've encountered Ironholds a number of times in discussions and have found the user to be a fine contributor and one who I respect. But the issues listed above are too significant... Hobit (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose, regretfully. Ironholds is a friend, but the edit summaries (such as cite or gtfo, which I didn't expect from my past interactions with him) and sloppy CSD work is too much for me. Once in mistakes or the occasional bites aren't that big a deal for me, but these are recent and plentiful. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Per SoWhy (talk · contribs) and DGG (talk · contribs). ···Katerenka (討論) 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose, reluctantly. I've worked with Ironholds occasionally, such as on articles at GA, and like their contributions to article creation and improvement. I'm concerned that adminship will draw Ironholds away from the stuff they're really good at, into areas where they're less suited. I think the contributions to patrolling and CSD etc are very valuable, but the issues raised by others above suggest that Ironholds' contributions in those areas are best done as a non-admin, where others will have some oversight. I would think of withholding the mop as a desire on our part to encourage this valued editor to keep wielding the pen :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    Comment - I think any editor elevated to adminship will probably keep doing what they have been; I'm not worried about them abandoning what they once did, so much as I am about them assuming what they never did. This is a bit of a [i want to protect the editor from themselves] argument that I find very problematic. I only challenge you here to perhaps bring out what many of us are thinking. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    A note that I've already said my main focus is still going to be on content contributions; Admin work is something for when there's a particular need for assistance. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

25. Oppose due to concerns about judgement and civility. SilkTork *^YES! 10:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Opposed. Per the recent prodding spree, apparently without doing a google search first. Examples: [25] [26], [27], etc. Pcap ping 12:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose due to quick delete trigger, excuses, civility concerns, treatment of newbies (and fellow editors at times), temperment, caustic summaries.--Buster7 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose Due to histories of incivility and sloppy work. Warrah (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    Can anyone actually provide diffs of clear incivility? --Narson ~ Talk • 15:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    What sloppy work? Even the more sensible opposers agree that his work has been excellent. Arguing about civility is one thing but when you call someone's work sloppy you damn well better provide some examples. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    See Oppose #3 for a list of recent examples. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    That's a little slack, isn't it? A bloke comes on here, parrots what he reads, and you attack him as if he should've thought about his vote or something... </sarcasm> —what a crazy random happenstance 17:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    For Ironholds' history of incivility, please read the complaints from the candidate's previous five RfAs. For Ironholds' record of sloppy work, please also read the complaints in the previous five RfAs plus the more current diffs cited in the earlier portion of this section by SoWhy and DGG. Warrah (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    I don't see any relevant diffs in DGG's oppose and the five RFAs are either of no relevance to the issues mentioned in your rationale or are too old to matter. That leaves SoWhy's !vote. I'm not sure I agree with all of the CSD taggings but I won't argue about that here (if I did then it should be under SoWhy's !vote and I believe Ironholds has already responded there). Next time be more precise. Regardless of what you think of the candidate he deserves that you at least provide a decent substantiated rationale and actually read the stuff you cite when asked to do so. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

29. Oppose. I have concerns about his judgment. Everyking (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose - seems excessively 'trigger-happy' when it comes to CSDs, and some of his edits raise civility issues. Robofish (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Oppose - per examples of biting, incivility, and lack of care in CSD provided by DGG and Fences and Windows. I have concerns about this user's judgment and would not be comfortable with him as a sysop. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Strong oppose I have great concerns about his lack of policy knowledge and enforcement as well as his apparent disapproval of WP:CIVIL.--NiceHotShower (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Xing. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    That AfD shows Ironholds keeping a cool head and reasonably applying policy against people behaving in a rather odd way and presenting somewhat ridiculous arguments, such as NiceHotShower. I advise that this vote should be ignored. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note that that link is what Ironholds added, not my example, and not part of my argument or concerns. Also, my !vote is just as valid as anyone else's espeically since my main concern about incivility is also shared with others here.--NiceHotShower (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    I request the closing crat to actually go through the AfD mentioned above, as that should explain the irrational oppose by both NiceHotShower, and Lionmadness below. Aditya Ex Machina 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

33. Oppose. Sorry, but when you make cases that put other editors under fire such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep, you should notify them instead of trying to get them crapped in secrecy behind their back. For admins especially, there should be no excuse for not notifying accounts involved in certain situations especially when the accounts are under fire, such as at WP:SPI. This also applies to ANI, RfC and various other discussions.--Lionmadness (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    I have already apologised to that, and was not trying to have you "crapped on" in secrecy. Since I've said I have little or no interest in ANI, RfC and SPI this is entirely irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

34. Oppose Not at all convinced that the editor's judgment in handling matters which are common for an admin to handle has significantly improved, per several diffs above. Achromatic (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Generally a good user, but still has some issues with civility and temperament. Sorry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral, per King of Hearts. Observed civility and temperament concerns. –blurpeace ^(talk) 09:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Ironholds is a total beast at New Page Patrolling. Unfortunately, I do have some concerns with civility/temperament so I'm afraid I cannot support in good conscious. Good luck nonetheless. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not a challenge at all, but just out of interest, could you give some specific instances? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, for starters, Fences&Windows sums it up pretty well in the oppose section. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. I too have concerns about granting anyone with chronic civility and temperament problems admin tools, and I'm still uneasy about the candidate's track record with the speedy trigger. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC) (Moved to oppose.)

4. Neutral. Certainly Ironholds is an able user, but concerns about civility and temperament keep me from supporting. bibliomaniac15 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
5. My thoughts match bibliomaniac15's exactly. iMatthew ^talk at 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral The same as bibliomaniac15. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
7. I think that this person would be a very good administrator and the user has enough experience to get to that level.Cheers,--GeneralCheese 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   Is this a support, surely? --Narson ~ Talk • 01:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

8. Oscillating This is a hard one. Although his work clearing the backlog at npp is admirable, he shouldn't sacrifice quality for speed. Everyone makes mistakes, bad calls, ect., but his are more common than I would like to see in an admin. However, the sheer volume of his edits must be taken into account. As User:Amorymeltzer observed above, his mistakes are "a drop in the bucket" when compared to the number of edits he makes. I stand firmly by my statement about trading quality for speed, but I must also say that for the amount he gets done, he's not that bad. As for his deletion policy, he seems a bit too trigger happy by my rather inclusionistic standards. Now I will say that there many articles on Wikipedia (both new and established) of questionable encyclopedic value; Ironholds may well have the right idea, and I did like his Q29 answer. Regarding concerns over civility, I do feel he is showing improvement (although "cleaned bullshit" is never an appropriate edit summary). His content work is exceptional, so if he does get adminship I am glad he will keep the focus on his editor's work. Still, he does enough in admin territory so giving him the tools wouldn't be a waste. Still looking over his contribs and watching this page, could go either way. Angrysockhop ^{(and a happy new year)} 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   Corrected my account name in your post, hope you don't mind. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

9. Neutral, echoing Bibliomaniac's concerns above. I will try to make a specific decision after this RfA matures, and I have more time to evaluate the user. — The Earwig @ 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral - cogent arguments from both sides. I'd say I'm leaning more towards support at the moment, but I am holding off going one way or another at the moment. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral You're heart is there, but the deletion tagging is a bothersome trait for me. I will likely support you next time, so please come back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)