Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:11, 16 March 2009 editJauerback (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators72,698 edits →Support: vote← Previous edit Revision as of 14:22, 16 March 2009 edit undoAitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 edits →Oppose: adding opposeNext edit →
Line 133: Line 133:
#::Could go either way in your hypothetical; it depends. (Anyone can suppress a single bad wiki-habit for six months.) I agree candidates don't need to be perfect. Let's leave it at that. ] (]) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC) #::Could go either way in your hypothetical; it depends. (Anyone can suppress a single bad wiki-habit for six months.) I agree candidates don't need to be perfect. Let's leave it at that. ] (]) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
# &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC) # &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I do not trust him. — ] <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


=====Neutral===== =====Neutral=====

Revision as of 14:22, 16 March 2009

Ironholds

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (30/8/2); Scheduled to end 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds (talk · contribs) – Ironholds has been an editor on Misplaced Pages for a year now — first edit April 2, 2008 — and during that time has shown a high level of competence and understanding, and in my opinion would be a fantastic administrator. He has a total of nearly 24,000 edits, 19,000 of those undeleted, and has maintained a high level of activity since he created his account (minimum 804 edits in Sept 2008, maximum 2385 in June 2008).

A university student studying law in real life, Ironholds has created a substantial number of articles on a variety of topics, and written 11 featured lists as well as two good articles. Furthermore, he has contributed 45 articles to Misplaced Pages which have further been featured on the Main Page as Did You Know? entries, demonstrating his experience with this area of the Main Page which could benefit heavily from another capable, active administrator. His comments on the DYK nominations of others have showed a high degree of understanding as to what consensus currently supports and opposes being featured in this frequently-changing section of the Main Page.

On the maintenance side of Misplaced Pages, Ironholds has had rollback rights for nine months, which he uses to help with recent changes monitoring, and to date has had no complaints with regard to his use of the tool. He has shown good judgement and skill in his efforts to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism in between contributing high-quality content, and has made over 220 edits to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention and nearly 100 to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

However, the thing that has most impressed me personally about Ironholds in the last year is how he brings calm, well-measured and thought-provoking contributions to heated discussions, ultimately improving the situation. Administrators who are both active and can use their judgement and understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies and-arguably more importantly-the principles behind them, to resolve issues and judge consensus, are those to be cherished. Ironholds has showed he has the ability to do this, both with his contributions to articles for deletion and also the administrator noticeboards.

Further, Ironholds has shown consistently-good judgement in his contributions to the deletion process, both with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion as well as speedy deletions. A new-page reviewer with nearly 5,000 deleted edits (many attributable to accurate speedy deletion nominations), his assistance with clearing candidates for speedy deletion as well as closing articles for deletion nominations in the same thoughtful and considerate manner that he contributes to them would be of great benefit to the community and to the encyclopedia.

I hope that the community agrees with the above, and supports this request, as Ironholds would truly be a fantastic administrator. Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: New Page Patrol is an area I currently work in, and through it I do a lot of CSD work and some prod and AfD for pages that aren't valid speedy candidates but nevertheless deserve to go. I don't think getting the tools will change my wiki-world-view, and so I'll probably do a large chunk of my admin work in those areas. I'll also hang around WP:ANI picking up on the less dramah-ridden requests; I tend not to spend much time around there at the moment in case something sticks to me. I'd also be interested in working at DYK; I send a lot of my articles there, and I have noticed rather substantial delays in changing the listings around on the main page (although they have improved recently).
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: Ohh, where to start! There was the Nobel Peace Prize, the Gabor Medal, the- oh, Misplaced Pages work? I guess my ten bits of Featured content would be the most obvious "big" things I've done, but I'm not very proud of most of them; they are all lists, and don't take that long to write. That being said this one almost killed me. The work I'm most proud of is probably the stuff relating to Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett; it went from this to this, which I thought was fantastic (although I'm sure there are editors who can do that without batting an eyelid). It is a Good Article, and has spent the last two weeks or so at FAC getting shinied up. I'm also doing a little project with User:Neurolysis (although little is a massive, massive understatement) to get all the Awards, Prize Lectures and Medals of the Royal Society of London up to Featured-class and turn it into a Featured Topic. We're about a quarter of the way through so far, with nine medals done.
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 can't really think of anything in the last.. well, lots really. The first thing my mind jumps to is "conflicts with established users"; I'm not the sort to start or seek those, and as a result haven't encountered anything major. If we're talking conflicts with new users, vandals and the like then they are again a rare thing, but a disagreement with User:The Real American comes to mind. He had created some pages about his own, unrecognised country (not even a microstate, essentially something that only existed in his own head) which I prodded and then eventually sent to AfD. He was understandably rather upset about this, something he showed in his own rather singular style I did try and help out (although I did get a bit sardonic at one point). As expected the pages were deleted (all the policy knowledge in the world wouldn't have prevented that) and he was blocked for a month due to vandalism and harassment. It later transpired he was socking to repost the articles, and his block was extended.
I'd like to think I prefer calming people down to escalating conflicts; here I tried to act as the voice of reason, asking people to stop turning the RfA into a debate over "does god exist, and if so does he exist on wikipedia". I'd like to think I was successful, but I'm not sure (would it be inappropriate to say "god knows"? Yes? You sure? Well, all right then). In future conflicts I'd probably follow the same sort of theme; calm people down, switch the discussion back to the issue at hand if it has drifted and try to prevent the disagreement infecting the surrounding area and derailing the rest of the discussion. Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional questions from Wehwalt
4 What's changed since the last RfA? How have you addressed the concerns expressed then?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A. I'd like to think I have cleared up the hypocricy and incivility issues which dogged my last RfA, although Scarian's oppose (however out of context some diffs may be) might change your mind on that front. The only other issue was the experimental RfA format, which I still maintain could work in theory (a bit like communism: wonderful until human nature gets taken into account). Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Optional question from roux  
5. I'm going to be asking this of all RFA candidates now. I personally feel that openness to recall is essential in admin; what the community giveth the community must also be able to taketh away. In my opinion, MBisanz has the most robust, streamlined, and intelligent criteria I have seen, and we have seen it work precisely as intended. What do you think of recall in general, MBisanz' version in particular, and should your RFA pass will you hold yourself to the same standard as MBisanz?
Recall is a good thing, in my opinion, when it is applied. Just like under-age users, a few bad apples taint the entire recall system despite the presence of a mass of people who would follow their own recall process without a second thought if the required standards were met. I like MBisanz's process, although I think the "five admins" threshold is a bit too high (although a counter to that argument would be that if it is something involving abuse of powers it will be obvious enough that other admins can see where the complainer is coming from). I'd hold myself to recall should this pass, yes, and I'd probably use MBisanz's process as a draft for working out mine. To stymie the inevitable "I won't support a candidate who is open to recall because it doesn't work"; if I pass and make my recall criteria I will place a public notice of the page somewhere, probably the 'crat noticeboard. I request that the clerks and any 'crats who decide to watchlist it keep a close eye on the page. If I either delete the page or later change my mind about following the process I request that said clerk/'crat immediately ask a steward to desysop me, using this diff as evidence that I would support such a thing. I'd hate to think I'd be enough of an arsehole not to follow my own process, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm some kind of flawless Übermensch. Drafting such a process would be my first task if this RfA passes. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Optional question from Malleus Fatuorum
6 Other RfA candidates have promised to be open to recall, but have not done so once promoted. Why should anyone believe that you wouldn't do the same?
I'll expand my earlier statement then; this also gives me an opportunity to clarify, since I think I was kind of rambling in Q5. I request that if I 1) refuse to set up a recall process if this RfA passes or 2) set up a recall process and then go back on it, a user (most likely another admin or a 'crat, since they're likely to be taken seriously) dash off to the nearest steward and get me desysopped, using this diff as evidence. To confirm: should I fail to go through with my RfA promises, I support my own -sysop. Again, I'd like to think I'm not enough of an arsehole to do something like that. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
But you and I both know that's not how things work. Everything said here is forgotten once an RfA passes, as many arseholes have clearly demonstrated. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you'd be joining that infamous crew, I'm just asking why anyone should believe that you wouldn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I know, and I appreciate that isn't what you're saying. Truth be told unless a 'crat/steward is willing to take this sort of promise (recall or -sysop) at face value and ignore any pleadings that "I've changed my mind" there isn't really a way to directly enforce it. The problem is it is rather reliant on me not turning into one of said arseholes, and while I'd like to think I can keep the level of arseholery to a minimum I'm not going to pretend I'm some kind of God-Emperor. I can say with 99% certainty that I won't turn into an arsehole, but that is all; I can't promise anything absolute. Sorry I can't really come up with a yes or no. Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

  • Ironholds, can you elaborate a bit on your semi-retirement alluded to below? Was it a case of wiki-burnout and or just personal real life responsibilities? I ask only because I want to ascertain if there is any latent drama. Thanks. Wisdom89 (T / ) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Real life stuff, not burnout, although the personal stuff was wiki-related. Essentially I went to a wikimeet and found that almost everyone there was better-spoken than me, more intelligent than me, more qualified than me and so on. I decided I obviously needed to focus more on my university work, and left for a bit. I found however that 1) I kept making little tweaks as I browsed and 2) the issue isn't my university work (I normally get 1sts and 2:1s, not to brag) but probably where I am in life; game theorists and cambridge graduates trump a second-year politics student at a former polytechnic in the sticks. As such there wasn't really any reason to leave; any issues with work that needed to take priority could be solved with better time management. Ironholds (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support as nominator. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Strong (and First) Support Cheers. I' 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, here's the rationale: With over 18960 total edits (almost 19000), Ironholds is one of the most prominent editors in our wiki. His 4,809 deleted contributions signify his vast work in CSD and AFD, where he is constantly debating with good rationale. In addition, he has 6500 article edits, 11 featured items, 2 good articles, and 45 DYKs. Now, with all this astounding article work, you might say that he never interacts with anybody. But no! He has 7073 User_Talk edits, whether they be warning users about vandalism, giving friendly advice to newbies, or co-operating with other users. His editcount also reflects his knowledge of Wikipedian policies- 221 contributions to Usernames for administrator attention, 143 edits to Administrator intervention against vandalism, 52 edits to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and many more. Cheers. I' 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    For the record, I did this before the RFA! :D Cheers. I' 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. I know of Ironholds as a good, solid net positive candidate, which is the important thing for a RfA. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support Has made strong and solid contributions to Misplaced Pages. Will use tools well. -download | sign! 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Even though he thinks soccer is the real football support That alone is not enough to make me oppose. Ironholds should be a net positive and will not delete the main page or cause the servers to crash. Support and good luck.--Giants27 /C 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support There is no real football (tinrf) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support More full rationale to come. I trust this user with the tools. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support - Does good work; no reason not to support. –Juliancolton 01:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support - see no likelihood of abuse, excellent answer to my question, give the poncy git a mop already. //roux   01:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. It was my oppose last time around that made Ironholds' last RfA unsuccessful. I've watched him since then, and he's improved greatly. As long as he doesn't resume past behavior when granted adminship, then as far as I'm concerned, he's learnt from his mistakes and can be made an admin. Good luck. Acalamari 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  11. Weak support Except if conduct is egregious, I consider six months to be a statute of limitations. I'll take Ironholds word in good faith.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  12. It's time. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support -- Ive seen this user at WP:FLC and I feel that he will benefit from the tools, as will WP. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  14. Strong support - Basically per Daniel. I did write a conom, but it was a load of poncy bollocks, and frankly Daniel said everything I was going to. He's consistently funny, dedicated, knowledgeable, and blatantly bereft of worthwhile activities (hence why he edits so much). Anyone who can interact with me as much as he does and not become a genocidal maniac can handle anything, including the responsibilities of adminship. But really, this support is a load of bollocks. — neuro 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support. I'm not swayed by the diff that's bothering Fastily (and Scarian). FAC can be stressful; this was a case where Ironholds believed that someone edited his article while it was at FAC, made it worse, and shouted at him in the edit summary. His response didn't help, but he immediately apologized and found something to thank the editor for. That diff doesn't outweigh all the good work he's done, for me, especially at CSD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support. A bit of sanity in an overwhelmingly bullshit project. Tan | 39 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    You're also in the overwhelmingly bullshit project (whatever may be but you seems to be referring to Misplaced Pages). --Caspian blue 04:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  17. Weak support Taking into consideration Scarian's argument, I still believe that the good you've done overshadows that to a certain extent. You're clearly dedicated to WP, despite being active for just under a year, and I hope you'll learn to be a bit more civil in the future. Fredrik • Wilhelm |T| 04:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    I've been here for around three years, but thanks for the support :). Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support Much to this Ironholds's chagrin, I work with him nearly every day and feel like I have a good sense of his character as a person and editor. What I see is an editor who's prolific, good-natured, exceptionally clueful, helpful off the charts, and lol-full as well. I also don't find the opposes convincing. In Scarian's first diff I see a harsh response followed by a rational apology. That's exactly what I want admins to do when they make mistakes - take responsibility and apologize maturely. Not exactly to a new user either. The nonsense of low-self esteem I find irrelevant at best and offensive at worst. Everyone has a bad day - and not to go editcountitis, but we're talking about a candidate with 24,000 edits here and tons of great content. FlyingToaster 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support- I've seen Ironholds around in many places, and have always been impressed with this user's clue levels. Reyk YO! 07:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  20. Strongest possible support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support, Ironholds seems to have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, has put a lot of effort into improving it, and generally seems sensible. While I can see Scarian's diff being somewhat objectionable, I certainly don't consider it anywhere near enough to oppose on given all the other good things I've seen. ~ mazca 07:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support I've worked with Ironholds on several articles and talked to him at several London meetups and I believe he is dedicated to Misplaced Pages and would use the mop well. WereSpielChequers 09:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support I don't see why not, everyone has their bad days. Nja 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support Excellent contributing editor, but when mop wieldling needs to remember to take a breath and bite his tongue to avoid unneccesary dramas. --GedUK  09:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  25. Strong support - based on my interactions with this editor, he is a valuable asset to Misplaced Pages, and should continue to show his value as an admin. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support While I acknowledge the diffs presented in the oppose section, I'm just not convinced that they demonstrate a net negative. Yes, one of the diffs was sarcastic and condescending, but we all step out of line once or twice. Wisdom89 (T / ) 11:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  27. I have immense respect for Ironholds as an editor and as a friend. The nominator sums up Ironholds' excellent work in a variety of areas. Admittedly, the opposing side do have some points about an apparent 'short fuse' (evidenced by one thread; two responses by IH), all I can say about that there are always times when something happens in real life (you get fired, your wife cheats on you with your best friend, you win $100,000 in the lottery only to find you put the ticket through the wash) that just make you RRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! :) and that these moments are inevitable (Don't deny it, you're telling me that you haven't gone a bit skitso once?). IH appears to have had one or two bad days; nothing repetitive and nothing really too serious (I mean, he used caps and perhaps came across as a bit angry, but, putting that into context with what some people did). And that is why I forgive him for a that lapse in civility. For these reasons, I say Yes to Ironholds, yet again. Foxy Loxy 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  28. Support - per Foxy and to attempt to counter the ridiculous oppose of Sceptre (talk · contribs) below. —Ed 17 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  29. Avruch 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  30. Support I'm particularly impressed by the candidate's very genuine and humble apology for the comment brought up in Scarian's oppose. Anyone can say things they later regret on a rough day, not everyone can swallow their pride and make it right. -- Vary Talk 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  31. Support - great nom statement, Daniel. Jauerback/dude. 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose - User, despite his answer to question 3, is not the sort of person to calm down disputes. Looking here (and his apology here which shows how he jumped to conclusions with: "Ahh, I see what you mean.") shows his tendency to still bite. Amandajm has been here for four months. I'd bet everything I own that Ironholds should have acted better on that. In his apology he notes that he's had a bad day; I shudder to think what sort of wrath a really bad day would bring. Along the lines of bad days is this (Notice the heading of "Your semi-retirement"); so, Ironholds, you felt like the community couldn't trust you a few days ago and now you wish to have an RfA? While I admit I do not know the backstory it seems like you are very prone to "burnout", low self-esteem (that can adversely affect your editing ability), and civility issues that you have not resolved since your last RfA. Re: The Real American thing: You got a bit "sardonic"? That sounds like baiting to me; you referred to it as if it "was dreamt up by a twelve year old"? Did you think that would make him even more calm? Despite the fact that he was an obvious troll you still fed and teased him. That's just not how things work. And show diffs that you're not proud of in question 3; honesty is the best policy. In summary, I'm afraid I believe that this user would be prone to burnout and "edit fatigue", which could lead to some really bad decisions. Scarian 01:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see how a low self esteem can affect my editing. Backstory on the "not respected" diff; Atyndall/Foxy and I discussed a possible RfA nomination for him. All I meant was that I'm no Balloonman or Bibliomaniac; It would be safe to say I'm not known/particularly respected as a nominator, particularly considering my previous nomination. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Amandajm has been here for four months, yes, and shows a good grasp of wiki policy; with respect, and without wishing to "lawyer up" I hardly see how WP:BITE applies. My edit here was in response to this; I was simply trying to give an example of exactly why that style of writing is bad. My "jumping to conclusions" was not to do with my temperament or civility; it was an issue of content which I was agreeing with, not an issue of whether or not his edit summary or my response was appropriate. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Of course self-esteem can affect your editing. Low self-esteem lowers your mood and tolerance for general irritance, of which, you're going to experience a lot more as an administrator. Re: Amandajm. Two wrongs do not make a right. Typing back in caps is not very likely to cool a situation (Please see your answer to question 3). Re: The Real American. Can you please respond to that concern of mine? Thank you. Scarian 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    My moments of low self-esteem normally make me curl up in a ball, not go on a bite-spree. The situation with The Real American probably wasn't my best attempt at helping, but I'd rather be honest with the RfA community and bring it up than have it surface later (or not at all, in which case I might have been +sysopped under false pretences). It wasn't intentional baiting (cue "lacks judgement, understanding of own actions" oppose) and I'd disagree with you defining him as a troll; I don't think he was here to cause trouble or harm the wiki, I just think he was unaware of Misplaced Pages's various policies. Without wishing to make a call on this (I'm not a judge) I'd say that it is most likely, given his editing style and contributions, that he was simply a young person who ended up on the wrong side of the fence rather than someone who set out to cause problems. Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Forgive me, but I don't quite understand. While your approach, as stated, is commendable, it seems to me that you were not assuming AGF at the time. I think your behaviour in the diffs are a far better indicator of your potential behaviour as an admin than your reply here. Scarian 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Not commenting on anything else in this oppose, but I can assure you that Amandajm has been here for more than four months. I remember that she was one of the first people I gave rollback to, and that was over a year ago. Acalamari 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps I got them confused with someone else. I've struck it. Regardless, it's still inexcusable. Scarian 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Scarian. While I do like the contributions that Ironholds made to the project, the behavior that Scarian brought up is ridiculous, especially for an rfa candidate. If it were not for this rude comment, especially since it was made 2 days ago, I would have strongly supported. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, this thing? Ironholds (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, that would be it - Fastily (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely not at this stage Sorry Ironholds, 2 days ago (diffs provided by Scarian above) you thought it was okay to yell at another editor to prove your point that editors shouldn't yell at others; your response above detailing that this had nothing to do with your temperament is incorrect by your own words in return to Admandajm which included, I've had a bad day (although that really shouldn't excuse it). This thread occurred despite the fact that you only 5 days earlier understood enough about your current level of participation to have come to the decision that you would semi-retire using the words about yourself to another editor's request for help in their RfA nomination - I won't be going ahead with it, I'm afraid; not to worry, I'm sure you can find someone tne community respects a bit more who would be willing to help you out. Today I am left with the overwhelming feeling also that you are not quite sure of your readiness when you question above, I don't see how a low self esteem can affect my editing. With the utmost respect, I think you should perhaps take the time to consider Adminship quite a while longer and see if this is really something you are ready for.--VS 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Have you seen my reply to Scarian's points? My "lack of respect" was in reference to my reputation as a nominator for RfAs (namely: no reputation whatsoever), not to my "low self esteem". Ironholds (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ironholds - I'd rather not get into a great debate here because of an oppose comment that I have provided - and yes I did read Scarian's comment. I'd be happy to discuss it elsewhere, however I will just say again 7 days ago you had semi-retired; 2 days ago you yelled at another editor, and today you state the question, (using your words) I don't see how a low self esteem can affect my editing. The fact is (others make this clear also above) - low self esteem (you had had a bad day) did effect your editing and only 2 days ago. Adminship (despite it apparently not being a big deal) will make you tear your hair out every now and again - so the diffs above (and below now from the neutral) do leave me with reasonable concern at this time. Oh and I should add that I come to this conclusion despite having the greatest respect for your nominator.--VS 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    And not to get into a debate, but low self esteem and a bad day are different things entirely. My comment that seems to have been interpreted as low self esteem (along the lines of "I'm not particularly respected around RfA") is entirely separate from my semi-retirement rationale. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Scarian. The burnout issue more than the civility issue. We're already losing admins, and I really don't want to see that number of admins who are leaving raise more than it should. Sceptre 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    So you are opposing because I might later leave? Ironholds (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Pretty much. I'd expect an admin to stick around for a bit. There is also a case to be made about addiction and/or attention-seeking: if you retired a week ago, but are at RfA, you might want to get out a bit more. And historically, easing out of Misplaced Pages is better than slapping on the "retired" template. Sceptre 03:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    So your answer to the ever decreasing number of active admins and ever increasing admins workload is to appoint less admins who are going to end up doing more work? Seddσn 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I've opposed you in the past, and I'm opposing you again today, yet I still have tremendous respect for you as an editor. That said, I just think you are a guaranteed ticking time bomb as an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose 6 times running for adminship (and failed) and recent incivility case are pretty much good reason to oppose. No thanks. We don't need more such admins. --Caspian blue 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Care to expand on why you believe that users are not allowed to reapply for adminship after a certain point? — neuro 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just a pointer: five, not six. Ironholds (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    I counted the experimental case too, so "six" is correct. My reasoning is well, I remind of a catchpraise used by some user; prima facie power hunger". --Caspian blue 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    No, counting the experimental case, five is correct. There are six links, yes; one of them is oh-so-subtly marked "post-mortem" and refers to Ironholds 2. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    That's patronising. I don't recommend that behaviour on your own RfA, friend. Scarian 04:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Then allow me to be patronising instead. There are clearly only 4 previous RfA's. One was oh so subtley marked "post-mortem" and the other is even subtely called Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 which unless I am very much mistaken is very same title of this page. Counting the experimental is somewhat of a bad faith move by the voter. So its nine months since the last run of the mill RfA? So whats the expected time at RfA now? Do ask candidates not to run for 12 months? 18? Seddσn 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ignoring the remark about the number of RfAs, Caspian's other concern was the recent incivility; I don't see anyone defending that much more important point here, do I? And you can be patronising all you wish, Seddon, but it doesn't reflect well on Ironholds' defense and just seems like an immature response. Scarian 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed scarian, noone is defending those and I will be honest and say that I am neither defending nor supporting ironholds at this time whilst I mull over the very diffs you have provided scarian and believe that your oppose is not unfounded. I see incivility issues to be a cause for concern and see this as a valid arguement. However comments made on flawed understanding or inconsistent information clearly should be brought up. RfA should be based on facts and I am sure you will agree that it would not be fair for a failing candidate nor a successful candidate to have thier RfA pass or fail with voters swayed by information that was not correct due to an accicental misundertanding. Seddσn 13:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Hear hear. My sentiments exactly. I wouldn't condone anything less. Scarian 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose There's nothing necessarily wrong with three RFA runs in nine months, but that pattern will understandably raise eyebrows and make people wonder why you're so eager for the bit. The frequency, coupled with continued civility concerns (infrequent though they may be), unfortunately raises a red flag. Not all good editors are well suited for adminship. Townlake (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Townlake, theoretically, suppose someone looks at his last two RFAs and this one (I discount the first two; he didn't know what to expect), and concludes that he did a good job each time of doing what the voters had asked for in the previous RFA. Would the multiple runs then be a net negative or a net positive for you? I can see it either way; I just hope that people don't start avoiding RFA til they're "perfect". That would cut the RFA community out of the feedback loop and drive the number of candidates way down. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Could go either way in your hypothetical; it depends. (Anyone can suppress a single bad wiki-habit for six months.) I agree candidates don't need to be perfect. Let's leave it at that. Townlake (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. Not the behavior or temperament I expect of an admin. —Dark 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I do not trust him. — Aitias // discussion 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral Ironholds does a lot of work on the wiki, but Scarian does bring some concerns diffs to light, I'm still thinking on this one. MBisanz 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'd rather not oppose because I've always been vocal about not holding grudges at RfA and I know that part of my reservations stem from one particular bad experience. Nevertheless, I have serious doubts about Ironholds' judgement and so I'll provide the diffs and let others make up their mind.
    • Ironholds is very active in RfAs and I've often found him unnecessarily aggressive and admin-quizz oriented (e.g. caring about the "ban vs. block" test , or insisting that candidates need to know everything )
    • The incident I was involved in goes back to the RfA of Itsmejudith. It's worth noting that Ironholds opposed this RfA in large part because of the nominator's attitude rather than the candidate's . The RfA was closely contested so I decided to contact the people who had given "neutral" opinions and ask to revisit the RfA and, so I was hoping, make it more clear-cut. I sent an honest thank you note to Wehwalt who misunderstood its intention. Ironholds (among others) threw AGF out of the window and accused me of canvassing, said he was trying hard to not be scandalized, hinted that I was coordinating this off-wiki . When I tried to defend myself, he faulted me for being exasperated .
    • Now the great irony of this is that this RfA coincided with the infamous third RfA of Ecoleetage. Eco received an enthusiastic nomination from Ironholds . Despite well-documented serious incidents of incivility in Eco's past, Ironholds declared that he'd "never met an editor as polite as he is, regardless of who he is talking to and his previous contact with them". Eco retired a few days later after a very bad off-wiki stalking incident. It's ironic that Ironholds, while denouncing Kingturtle's "flippant attitude" in Itsmejudith's RfA, was not so good at keeping his cool when people opposed his candidate .
    • I've also looked at his recent work (i.e. last 24 hours) with PROD tags and I see ominous signs of bad judgement. An article about a painter who happens to be Robert De Niro's mother got tagged with "Notability is not genetically inherited" . Of course, it's an absurd rationale genetically speaking but more worrisome is the fact that the most basic Google search demonstrates notability and then some. Two other tags were also clearly inappropriate: this one was quickly reverted and this one was put in place despite the fact that a previous prod tag had been contested a month earlier . Even this last one is probably over-aggressive . Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just a pointer; the diff you provide about me claiming "admins need to know everything" starts "Admin candidates are not expected to have complete knowledge of every wiki-policy". My comment on the "Block v. Ban" test was just a statement about how I see it; you will notice that at no point did I go "OPPOSE per answer to question I disagree with". Ironholds (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    In addition I didn't "fault you for being exasperated"; I faulted you for saying I was "outraged" (your words, not mine, I kept a level head) and accusing me of assuming bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    I guess it's easier to keep a level head when you're making unfounded accusations than when you're defending against them. In any case, people can read and make up their mind. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3: Difference between revisions Add topic