Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5

Ironholds

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (47/0/1); Scheduled to end 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

Questions for the candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional optional question from The Utahraptor

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

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

Additional optional question from N5iln

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

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

Additional optional question from BrownHairedGirl

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

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

Questions from Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK)

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

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

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

Additional optional question from Shawn in Montreal

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

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

Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

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

A:

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

A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. Support--John (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. Good content contributor, appears to have addressed issues raised in previous RFAs. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. This candidate has taken to heart advice from prior RfAs and will most likely prove a solid admin. Ironholds is helpful to others and is a dedicated, experienced editor. He has my trust. Majoreditor (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
47. Strong support - Leo 04:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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