Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2

Edit count for Ironholds
User:Ironholds

run at Tue Oct 7 18:06:39 2008 GMT

Category talk:        1 Category:             17 Image talk:           1 Image:                2 Mainspace             5730 Portal talk:          1 Portal:               1 Talk:                 130 Template talk:        60 Template:             15 User talk:            2835 User:                 754 Wikipedia talk:       80 Wikipedia:            923 avg edits per page    1.54 earliest              19:46, 2 April 2008 number of unique pages 6829 total                 10550

2008/4 1450   2008/5  2027   2008/6  2424   2008/7  1873   2008/8  1453   2008/9  810   2008/10 513

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 38 [2]List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead 19 [3]Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 15 [4]Pure Reason Revolution 12 [5]Mark Kirk 11 [6]Nower Hill High School 11 [7]Vesper bat 8 [8]Cautionary Tales for the Brave 8 [9]Jon Courtney 7 [10]High Sheriff of Northamptonshire 7 [11]The Dark Third 7 [12]George Treby (judge) 7 [13]Tim Smith (musician) 7 [14]Oryzomyini 7 [15]Amphinectomys 6 [16]The Bright Ambassadors of Morning

Talk: 9 [17]Pure Reason Revolution 7 [18]Ancient Olympic Games 5 [19]Richard Stover 4 [20]Mark Kirk 3 [21]2005 Hit convoy ambush 3 [22]Antichrist 3 [23]Athene (MovieLOL) 2 [24]Dionne Mahaffey-Muhammad 2 [25]Channel stopper 2 [26]Prodigious Savant 2 [27]James Ralph 2 [28]List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead 2 [29]Judicial system of Iran 2 [30]George Hammond Whalley 2 [31]V Sambasivan

Template: 6 [32]Speaker of the British House of Commons 3 [33]PRRevolution 2 [34]Announcements/Community bulletin board 2 [35]KidsTVBlocksUS

Template talk: 60 [36]Did you know

User: 175 [37]Ironholds/Sandbox 135 [38]Ironholds/Sandbox2 76 [39]Ironholds/CP 53 [40]Ironholds 44 [41]Ironholds/page 28 [42]Ironholds/header 17 [43]Ironholds/DYK 16 [44]Ironholds/Sandbox3 12 [45]Ironholds/monobook.js   11  [46]Ironholds/Awards 7  [47]Ironholds/requestdraft 2  [48]Coldgarden 2  [49]Allison Poulos/Crop wild relatives 2  [50]Durova/RFA Review boycott 2  [51]Andrew C. Bowman

User talk: 40 [52]Ecoleetage 27 [53]Ironholds 26 [54]Choess 25 [55]Bbadree 24 [56]CultureDrone 20 [57]Red Thunder 20 [58]Rjecina/Archive4 20 [59]Hellboy2hell 19 [60]Shapiros10 19 [61]Ironholds/archive1 16 [62]Omghax111 16 [63]Mastrchf91 14 [64]Juggernaut0102 12 [65]Cenarium/Old 12 [66]Pirakafreak24

Wikipedia: 172 [67]Usernames for administrator attention 92 [68]Administrator intervention against vandalism 62 [69]Miscellany for deletion 23 [70]Requests for adminship/Ironholds 21      [71]Featured list candidates/List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstea d/archive1 21 [72]Miscellany for deletion/User:Spiritus Nirin 17 [73]Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245 12 [74]WikiUpdate 11 [75]Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom 2 11 [76]Miscellany for deletion/User:Voldemore 10 [77]Miscellany for deletion/User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend 7  [78]Articles for deletion/The Intention Craft (single) 7  [79]Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 2 7  [80]Suspected sock puppets/Voldemore 7  [81]Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2

Wikipedia talk: 28 [82]Requests for adminship 13 [83]WikiProject Mammals 8 [84]WikiUpdate 5 [85]Meetup/London 13 5 [86]Meetup/London 11 5 [87]Meetup/London 12 4 [88]Requests for adminship/SoWhy 3 [89]Use diacritics

If there were any problems, please [90]email Interiot or post at  [91]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 18:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

Opposes based on participating in an experiment
Come on, these are some of the most ludicrous, barrel-scraping opposes I have seen. The fact that the candidate was encouraged and thanked for being a participant in this experiment on WT:RFA itself (a thread none of these opposes seem to have noticed) clearly shows that he wasn't acting solely on his own judgement, but with the support of a number of RfA regulars themselves. These opposes aren't against the candidate. These are opposes against the very concept of a group of contributors trying to change a process in order to improve it. These are opposes which, if taken seriously, seek to stifle any kind of innovation or change in an attempt to improve the way WP works. These are opposes which, in my opinion, should be discarded. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  09:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree but I would prefer not to discuss it here. Let the closing crat sort it out, I am quite confident that the outcome will be the same as when someone gets opposed on a normal RfA based on the fact that the opposer thinks the system is broken. But I fear by posting this here you opened the arena for a big discussion about those !votes and about those who !voted that way. Maybe WP:BN would have been a better place, although, as I said, I doubt the crats need such a reminder.  So Why  11:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation
I feel an explanation is needed for my oppose, so I'll give one as best as I can. I'm writing it here so it'll be easier to read.

First off, I wish to apologize to everyone for any drama that has come/may continue to come out of my oppose: it was not my intention to cause a storm, and even more so due to the nature of this RfA.

Secondly, I hold no ill-will or grudges against Ironholds: I am not a fan of grudges, and I can assure everyone that my oppose was intended to give my concern about why I was not comfortable with Ironholds being an admin at this stage: it was not done to torpedo his request and/or to "get even" over something.

Thirdly, as for why I did not bring up those concerns in the discussion period, it was because I was trying to find a good way to bring them up without looking as though I was trying to sink this request. I then felt that bringing up the concerns all up at once in a single oppose, rather than in bits and keep asking "Why did you do this? This? This?", would be better. I was wrong, and I fear I may have helped sink this type of RfA format...and I do feel bad over that. Even now, I'm not happy with the entire way I wrote my oppose: I had to reword it several times to make it as civil and as least harsh as possible, and still, I perhaps could have written it better.

I will recuse myself from further participation if it is deemed necessary. Acalamari 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To summarise the above statement: Dear Ironholds I'm sorry I kicked you in the balls, it really wasn't deliberate. I was aiming for your stomach, but mistimed my run-up RMHED (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate comment. Much like your oppose. Please, tone it down. Way down. -- how do you turn this on  19:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought it rather pithy. RMHED (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Like you did anything wrong Acalamari. Some people just can't grasp the fact that (shock horror) someone out there might disagree with them.  naerii  19:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct Acalamari did nothing wrong. He did everything exactly right, timed to perfection in fact. RMHED (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's rather obvious this "test" hasn't worked. -- how do you turn this on  19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if the purpose of this 'test' is to try and eliminate perfectly reasonable opposes then yes, thank God, it's failed.  naerii  21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i think you gig fine... you are under no obligation to raise concerns in the q/a period. the only people who are upset are those that want a perfect world---which won't happen.  people can produce evidence at any point...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FFS this isn't a trial, it's just a sodding RfA on a website that takes itself wayyyyyy too seriously. RMHED (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think everything went fine as well, nothing will ever be perfect and you don't need to apologize, you still followed the rules. --Banime (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No drama here, I think. Similarly, I see no need for a recusation. :) Your oppose was legitimate, especially since it was supported by evidence. Nor do I (or most here) think you have a grudge; that would be assuming bad faith, and I know I wasn't when I responded. I think bringing up those concerns during the discussion period would have been much preferable as opposed to being the second oppose. It gives him some time to say (if this is what he were to say), "uh oh, I screwed up. I'll tone it down, and if I don't, come talk to me about it," or maybe "I fully and completely support my responses in those cases," etc. I think you could have asked all the questions in one question, or in parts of a question, or possibly with something like the question that jc37 asked as a capstone to your paragraphs, rather than as a set of questions which are so specific to the candidate, that they are more or less "wtf?". However, as noted above, this isn't a perfect world, and so we'll just have to live with what happened, and wait to see if Ironholds passes. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I was the main responder to your oppose, I feel the need to comment further.
 * If people really want to reform RfA they should be supporting at Requests for adminship/Krm500, an RfA of a perfectly good candidate who is receiving a ridiculous amount of completely empty and baseless opposes. The only way to reform is to change attitudes (and that means your attitude too! don't just wait for everyone else to change their stance). Simply rearranging the discussion in a different way will do nothing.  naerii  16:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Who opposes more than Kurt

 * I knew we'd get Kurt back at RfA one way or another! (No, I'm not having fun at Kurt's expense&mdash;I have been, on the whole, a strong supporter of his and would not make light of his having been forced [untowardly] to elect to refrain from editing in project space for a period if I did not imagine that he would not mind or were I not sure that my comment would be understood in the jocular fashion in which it is offered; I suppose, though, that any joke that requires so much qualification or explanation must be other than funny.) Joe 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Kurt opposed about 94% of the RfA's he commented on... there is a person who has contributed to almost 600 RfA's and has a 99% oppose rate! Anybody know who that is?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. But maybe he/she is one only to vote when they see something wrong in the candidate and will leave the supporting to the regular voters. 220.239.56.131 (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Balloonman: that would be User:Boothy443. That's why I coined the term "get the Booth". Owen&times; &#9742;  12:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Booth only opposes about 83% of the time and has only participated in about 150 total RfA's... Kurt was at 94% and opposed 155 RfA's. The person I'm thinking of has OPPOSED 589 candidates while supporting only 8!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it Masssiveego? -- how do you turn this on  15:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Nevermind. -- how do you turn this on  16:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Nope, Masssiveego opposes about 88% and has contributed in about 150 RfA's. The person I am thinking of is somebody who, frankly, I didn't realize had nearly as many contributions as he does.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know who it is? -- how do you turn this on  16:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimbo. I knew it was a big deal! ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! Of course it's Jimbo... er not... but yes, I do know who it is... but I'm curious as to who else people think it might be before revealing it.  On the flip side, there is a person who has SUPPORTED 571 times and only opposed 14 times... anybody know who that person is?  --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Crap... the person who I wrote down as oppossing 589 didn't oppose 589 times... the tool couldn't parse his opposes 589 times!!! The worst person to oppose, that I've looked at thus... was kurt... others have opposed more, but they support more too.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the person who has supported 571 times is Siva1979.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it was him. -- how do you turn this on  18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll narrow it down significantly, the person who has supported 571 times and opposed only 14 times has opposed THIS RfA (Which I don't know if is part of the 14 or if this RfA makes 15.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wizardman? Erik the Red  2    22:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? ;p Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultimately no... just some statistical curiosities.... Wizardman has participated in close to 500 RFA's but he's about 75% support.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know - Acalamari! But yeah, as Ironholds says, does it matter? (in the context of this RFA) Maybe this should get moved to RFA talk? -- how do you turn this on  22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm posting this here, since any kind of reply on the main request will be lost completely

 * Well, I congratulate Ironholds for being bold to test a new RfA format, but I have some reasons to oppose this request. To begin with, I came across this oppose which, in my opinion, was incredibly biting, as were these two. This oppose, like a couple of the ones I mentioned above, was unnecessarily uncivil. I also came across a few other opposes that came across as aggressive in tone and/or lack the assumptions of good faith on behalf of the said candidates: I'm also not happy with an event surrounding Ironholds' last RfA: two weeks prior to it, he tells another editor to wait to be nominated, and that is what he (Ironholds) was planning to do, yet he goes against his own advice and self-nominates: I do not consider that to be good judgment. On top of my other concerns, I have two more: I came across this, an inappropriate hidden comment on his user page, and is still on his user page as of the most recent edit (note that the most recent edit may change during the course of this RfA). Lastly, note in the first part of how I congratulate Ironholds for running in an experimental RfA? Well, I still do congratulate him, but I noticed part of his reasons for opposing two other candidates, Ali'i and Mr. IP: in Ali'i, he mentioned, "In addition, applying to prove a point makes a mockery of the process. Yes, admins are technically no more important than users, but RfA in a way shows the quality and quantity of your contributions to Wikipedia; debasing that to prove a point is almost disruptive.": the RfA for Ali'i was somewhat of an experimental one, and Ironholds partially opposed her on that basis. As for Mr. IP, I found that more worrying; Ironholds' entire rationale was: "Oppose. This RfA does nothing but disrupt the process and create DRAMAH. If you want to test the RfA policy then you can contribute to the discussions about overhauling it, not waste peoples time here. By posting this RfA as a "test" you've proven yourself an inappropriate admin candidate." That oppose was uncivil, which was bad enough, and now that Ironholds himself is running in a "test" RfA, after accusing two other people of “disruption” and/or “DRAMAH” for doing the same/similiar thing, and he has not followed his own words. Suffice to say, I am not comfortable with Ironholds' judgment for the time being. Acalamari 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The first oppose wasn't, in my opinion (not that that counts as much) bitey. "But listen. Jimbo Wales said the Adminship is no big deal. So why not? I leave you there." is pretty much an "annoying statement". ""Adminship is not a big deal" does not translate to "lets give everyone with 100 edits the banhammer". " is perfectly accurate, and there is little hyperbole involved; the user in question had 180 mainspace edits.
 * 2) The second oppose is bitey, fair enough; I'm not going to make "not a good day" excuses; people going for it without reading any of the associated material annoy me greatly (which I did a couple of times, and still make me mentally hit myself). The third oppose is not in the least part biting; the candidate was exactly what it says on the box, and the internet is a difficult place to transmit emotive content; one man's honesty is another man's rudeness. The same applies to Derfboy's RfA, for that matter; "you've got 30 edits. I recommend you withdraw it, this is never going to pass" is honesty, not rudeness.
 * 3) The oppose per... experimental nature were from around 3 months ago, and people can (suprisingly) change. Voting oppose based on a user not assuming good faith in candidates while at the same time not assuming good faith within your oppose is hypocritical at best (although I appreciate you're not running for admin).
 * While I appreciate you didn't want to cripple this experiment, and may have held back because you felt it would be bad to post in dribs and drabs, the fact of the matter is that users who did find things they took issue with posted all in one load (or in dribs and drabs) and I had no trouble or issue with answering these, something which could've been detected from the first to fourth days of the RfA. If other users are doing it and I take no issue with that, surely common sense says that I would have no problem with you posting those differences; the fact that you were trying to work out a way to bring them up "without looking as though I was trying to sink this request" even while posting the oppose shows you understand the damage they could do through the conventional RfA method (one of the main things we're trying to reform) and yet Still failed to bring it up. You have done nothing against any kind of "rule", and you're completely allowed to post differences in that format, but the fact that you knew it was an experimental RfA designed with such things in mind, could clearly see that differences such as yours were being brought up in the discussion in numbers with no ill-will from the candidate, was perfectly aware such differences could "torpedo" an RfA if brought up normally and yet did nothing to bring them up during the question stage is incredibly frustrating. Ironholds (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, after reading your response I don't feel any differently and I still believe that you'd be a poor admin. If Acalamari hadn't posted those diffs I certainly would have, as I'd already decided to oppose you around five minutes after you'd posted the request. Does that make me a bad person? Am I contributing to the 'flaws' of RfA by thinking that you'd make a bad admin right now and not being particularly interested in discussing it? It's funny; during the questions phase I did draw up a comment about your behaviour at RfA and was about to post it when I changed my mind. It felt really pointless; "hey guys, I have issues with the way that Ironholds frequently opposes RfAs". And then what - you'd have said what you said above and then another dozen people would have chimed in with what they felt about it (which would have been particularly irrelevant as I don't much give a crap about other people's opinion on the matter). I really doubt it would have made a difference to your RfA, as people who don't think you'd make a good admin would have opposed you regardless of whether it was posted in the questions phase or the voting phase. You'd be making a big mistake to blame the imminent failure of this RfA on Acalamari's oppose or "pile-on" voters. Perhaps if you were a bit more civil and thoughtful when commenting on other people's requests then you wouldn't have to resort to an editor-review-cum-rfa in order to pass? After all, you're only really receiving the treatment I've seen you give to others many, many times. I have a big problem with the fact that people who are making perfectly reasonable opposes are being castigated as if they alone are the cause of the flaws in RfA. If you are a bad candidate you will be opposed; deal with it.  naerii  22:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, people are not under any obligation to raise questions during the QA. And I think his oppose does a great job of illustrating how this method doesn't avoid any of the problems previously expressed---but only highlighted the thing I find least helpful in RfA's---the Questions.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)