Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IronDuke


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

IronDuke
Final (21/20/3); Ended Wed, 21 March 16:20 UTC

- IronDuke has been with us since October 2005. He's made 3,000 edits, with 1,500 to articles and a good balance of posts to article and user talk. He's a great editor, very level-headed, with lots of common sense, and a pleasure to have around. He's a regular participant at AN/I and RfA, and in general has become a popular and respected member of the community. It's my privilege to nominate him. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with thanks. IronDuke  16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. Thanks to all who supported; it isn't always easy to do when there are a number of opposes. Thanks also to those opposes. You have given me much to think about.  IronDuke  16:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Two small things: I have been inactive recently due to flu and jury duty. When this process is over, I will leave a message to everyone who voted on my own talk page, and on this talk page as well above. IronDuke 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to apologize to people for not mentioning the arbitration case. It wasn't a deliberate omission. I assumed IronDuke would say something, and it seems he assumed that, because I didn't, there was no need for him to, so it was a genuine misunderstanding. The reason it wasn't uppermost in my mind is that it was 15 months ago, and the case ended with no sanctions against either party, though both were told off. In addition, IronDuke was a newish editor at the time, so for all these reasons I didn't afford it sufficient importance. That is my fault, not IronDuke's, because he was taking his lead from me. I hope people will look beyond that one issue and try to judge him on his contributions since then. He really has grown into a responsible editor who would use the tools wisely. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I'm interested in continuing with some of what I've already been doing on a non-admin basis. In no particular order, vandal-fighting, WP:AN and WP:AN/I, WP:3RR, WP:RFCN, article protection, dispute resolution, and community noticeboard. If given the mop, I'd also be interested in helping with requests for unblock. Most of those requests are easily deniable, but I would welcome it as an opportunity to guide a user who might have become angry or frustrated, even when their block was totally appropriate. I will also say that what distresses me most about WP is when a smallish issue mushrooms into a big fight, with good editors taking sides against each other in a non-productive way. I'm eager to do anything I can to help de-escalate situations which might divide the community.


 * I will also say that my main focus is still going to be on content. I'll help wherever and whenever I can in an official capacity but, as we never tire of saying, we're here to build an encyclopedia.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'm a big fan of 19th century history, particularly American. I've been essentially the sole creator of Joseph Seligman which, while still in progress, I'm very happy with. He was very important in his day, but few remember him now. On the policy side, I'm also pleased with my contributions to WP:SPAM, which I made after consulting arbcom for a clarification and asking for input on talk. You can see them here. The section I rewrote and renamed was broken out by someone else into its own page, WP:CANVAS. I'm also happy with my work mediating disputes, here particularly.


 * 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 have been stressed on occasion. For example, after reverting vandalism to David Duke, someone left this message on my talk page. I responded here. I like to think that the best way to respond to people is to reach out when possible. This person's heart may have been in the right place, but they were clearly very angry and acting badly. I've been called some pretty horrific stuff, but sadly, if you want to be a long-term editor here, you're almost certainly going to have to learn to deal with it. I don't want to give the impression that I'm a saint, by the way. I have sometimes been a little more curt than I would like, but I've found that avoiding a snappish response and going out of your way to be polite makes it easier for everyone involved.


 * Optional questions from
 * 4. You say above: "...I'd also be interested in helping with requests for unblock. Most of those requests are easily deniable, but I would welcome it as an opportunity to guide a user who might have become angry or frustrated, even when their block was totally appropriate." Do you envisage unblocking a user who had been appropriately blocked by another admin? In what circumstances?
 * A: Absolutely not. But blocks run out, and users sometimes return from them with a big chip on their shoulders and can use a friendly face. Also, I would virtually always contact the admin in question before acting.


 * 5. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
 * A: Wheel-warring is bad because it disrupts Wikipedia and sets a very poor example. Not everyone agrees, but I think admins set the tone, or should. The best step to avoid it is to gather consensus before using admin powers to revert another admin.


 * 6. About a year ago, the Arbitration Committee found that you had engaged in low quality tendentious editing. Do you think that was an accurate description of your conduct? What steps did you take to modify your editing practices as a result of the finding?
 * A: I do think it was accurate at the very least with respect to the edit they were focusing, which violated WP:OR, and was argumentative at best. One step I’ve taken since then is to source every single edit of any consequence I ever make. Though I wish the lesson hadn't been so hard, I am glad I learned it. And again, as I've said on the talk page, in no way was I attempting to hide this. I was trying to protect multiple editors from aggravation, but looking back, I should have seen that this topic was inevitable.


 * General comments


 * See IronDuke's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support great editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support excellent editor will make great admin. I really thought he already was one. -- M P er el ( talk 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, Doug's very unfair oppose irked me, so I looked into his contributions and see only good stuff for the last few times I clicked backwards in time. Agree that the RFArb should have been mentioned, although given that the great majority of it was findings against Gnetwerker, and how rude he'd been to IronDuke, this doesn't strike me as a blatant attempt to sweep anything under the rug.  Neil   (not Proto ►)  17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your characterization of the findings. I find the insertion of false, derogatory information to be a more significant finding against IronDuke than rudeness on the part of someone responding to it. —Doug Bell talk 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But that insertion - although both wrong and dumb to do - was fifteen months ago, and six weeks into the user's participation on Wikipedia. You're punishing someone for something they did as a newbie, well over a year ago.  That's ludicrous, and the fact that so many people are agreeing with you is foppery.   Neil   (not Proto ►)  13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest possible support. Need more admins like this. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I'm willing to forgive the RFAr issue raised in the oppose section. Overall, this user has done very well. YechielMan 19:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Always well-researched. --Shamir1 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support IronDuke has been a trusted member of the community for quite a while and I think it's great that he wants to help out a bit more with some of the administrative stuff  gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - okay, should have disclosed the Arbcom case, though he clearly was the offended party. The edit he was reprimanded for was exceedingly mild, and I've seen active admins commit much worse crimes in any given hour. But his candidacy is based on a solid record of editing and a remarkably even record in conflicts. Honestly, anyone who cares about the topics he/she writes about is going to end up in some conflict or another - the issue is whether he/she is convinced by reason rather than POV in the end. --Leifern 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - per Leifern. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, excellent candidate.  6SJ7 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Level-headed, sensible. Issues from the time he first joined Wikipedia have long been worked out. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, it takes significantly less than 15 months to learn how to edit properly. His time on Wikipedia has grown 10-fold since then for goodness' sake.  Milto LOL pia 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Well deserving ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Would make a excellent admin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I originally forgot to mention the ArbCom I was involved in on my RfA, I don't think it's a huge issue. Also, the edit Doug cites is from more than a year ago. Khoikhoi 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per SlimVirgin Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per Jayjg. Grace Note 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support To me, RfA is neither witchhunt nor whitewashing; neither partisanship nor popularity contest, but a referendum on whether the user in question's judgement can be trusted. If I trust a user's judgement, I will support even with whom I have had disagreements in the past, and remain moot even on those editors with whom I have had nothing but genial interaction. In IronDuke's case, my feeling is that this user has developed to the point where his judgement will be applied accurately and in accordance with wikipedia's policies. It is the rare editor who has not made stupid edits in the past; it is the poor one who does not learn from them, and ID seems to have. -- Avi 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Supportper Leifern [<- this was added by an IP. --tickle me 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)]
 * 1) Support per Leifern. Doug's opposition doesn't convince me. I edited like that as a rookie, before I checked WP:RS and its ilk. My editing so far had only minor intersections with IronDuke's, however, I liked what I saw. --tickle me 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Slim & Jayjg. - Denny 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, there's more to Wikipedia then Wikipolitics, sorry. --Matthew
 * 2) Oppose per this edit. Absolutely don't need an admin that inserts patently false information into an article as an attack (see Talk:Reed College/drug use dispute).  Also, I would have expected some disclosure of the related Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker arbitration case above.  The failure to disclose this also reflects poorly. —Doug Bell talk 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Doug, is it fair to use an edit made six weeks into a user's participation in Wikipedia as a reason to oppose the user fifteen months later? Neil   (not Proto ►)  17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not simply that there was an arbitration case. It's the deliberate attempt to insert false, disparaging information as part of a dispute that I find particularly disturbing.  When combined with the lack of disclosure (afterall, that arbitration case is a significant portion of IronDuke's Wikipedia space edits), I must oppose.  The RfAr may be old, but the decision not to mention it here is current. —Doug Bell talk 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Doug, I understand that the information was unsourced, but do you have a reason to say it was false? He claims he knows it 'for a certainty', presumably from personal knowledge, which of course is unacceptable, but that's still different from being false, and is not an uncommon mistake for a new editor. If you know more about this, please share. Crum375 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't "know" anything about the incident or the truth of the statement. I'm saying it was false, because of the nature of the statement "although deaths from heroin overdoses by members of the Reed community were not uncommon in the early to mid 90's".  If people dying of heroin overdoses were not uncommon [sic], then there at least would be some sources that show it happened.  Otherwise, where is the basis to make the claim of overdose deaths being common?  I just don't see that as the type of statement that is made in good faith and backed by a statement of having "virtual certainty" without there being some evidence to support it.
 * I'm certainly open to an explanation to show how I'm misinterpretting the evidence here, but from his answer on the talk page it appears that IronDuke would rather not. I'm fine with that decision, but not with the decision not to address the issue up front.  As IronDuke states on his explanation, he deliberately didn't mention the incident—the only reason for that would be the hope that it would not come up at all, despite his stated concerns that it would.  If he'd addressed this head on it would probably have been a non-issue for me.  As it is, it causes enough questions regarding judgement for me to oppose.
 * Just for the record, I'd like to point out that I was prepared to support this nomination and only discovered the whole incident while looking through his Wikipedia namespace contributions for some examples of his participation in deletion discussions. After reading the rather mild (and favorable) answer to question #3 above, I was quite surprised to find this undisclosed incident.  Certainly nothing in his answer regarding conflicts prepared me for that discovery. —Doug Bell talk 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I haven't voted yet here, but it seems to me that stating that the statements he added were 'false' is a serious charge, as it implies knowingly libeling an organization. Given that he stated that he 'knows with certainty' that it's true, and that we are supposed to assume good faith, I think it makes sense, unless we know otherwise, to take him at his word on this. I do agree of course, as did ArbCom, that it was wrong to insert that unsourced info, and I also agree with you that he should have let us know about the Arb case. But given that it's long in the past, when he was new, and he was only cautioned about his behavior, I can see him not realizing that it should be mentioned upfront here. Crum375 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Doug, you deliberately ignored the point of the question. Again: Do you think it is fair to oppose someone based on an edit they made six weeks into their editing 'career', fifteen months ago?  Neil   (not Proto ►)  13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Sorry, but the nondisclosure of the RFAr leaves me uneasy about the candidate. --Mus Musculus 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per "low quality tendentious editing" a finding of your ArbCom case. Addhoc 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Doug Bell and Mus Musculus. Yuser31415 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - it's always the case with a job that you should declare past convictions even though they're really unlikely to affect your prospects but disclosure shows something undesirable in a candidate, and the same applies here. -- Nick  t  20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "but nondisclosure"... —Doug Bell talk 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per information listed by Doug Bell. I don't think this kind of behavior is indicative of a level-headed editor and someone entrusted with additional tools and responsibilities. I suggest working on these issues and becoming a model Wikipedian for the next several months. I would reconsider at that time based on my comments. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per many reasons above, and the candidate has very little experience in many areas of the project. --- RockMFR 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Being the subject of ArbCom remedies, and not disclosing it, disqualifies. Sandstein 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see talk re the arbcom decision. IronDuke  22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above per Nihonjoe. Just Heditor review 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above, also not a very prolific editor. Everyking 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per RockMFR--Londoneye 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per concerns about the arbitration case. Dekimasu よ! 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I have looked through this user's contributions, and I've noticed plenty of spelling mistakes.  I also see him remove sourced info for no reason. He also has a tendency to get very political about Judaism/Israel.   He removes things from his user talk page. . He has a tendency to make large numbers of edits in a row to certain articles,   and yet even after dozens of edits they still seem awkward and un-wikified. . This seems injudicious: I worry if he were to get the power to speedy delete. By the way, has anyone noticed that there is another user with the name Ironduke (lowercase)? - Richard Cavell 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having issues with spelling and grammar is never a reason to oppose someone. My spelling/grammar is among the poorest of all admins and I use the tools fine. Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose &mdash; Michael Linnear   01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too many concerns for me to support. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above. Dionyseus 07:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per Mus Musculus. Old mistakes can be forgiven, but nondisclosure is troubling. Xoloz 10:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Too many concerns.    Buck  ets  ofg  10:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Mus Musculus. Terence 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral per Mus Musculus. Other than that I can't make out an immediate reason not to support, pending a good explanation (and maybe apology) from IronDuke. "Forgetting" RfAr is actually a serious thing, I still hope for an explanation, but most probably not going to support. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I trust the candidate has learned from and left behind 15 month old mistakes, but he doesn't seem to be extremely prolific. And forgetting an arbcom case is rather concerning. – Riana ঋ 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral A very civil wikipedian as i enjoyed discussing w/ him a few matters before. However, i am very concerned by the points mentioned by the oppose voters. Good luck. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.