Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] Ironholds

Final (12/24/10); Withdrawn by Ironholds, at 13:53 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironholds (talk · contribs) - I've been editing wikipedia for around 2 and a half years as Ironholds and under a previous account name, and amassed 9,011 edits not including this RfA. Wikipedia takes up a large chunk of my time; i should be revising for exams at the moment, and have put myself on Wikibreak, but for me that translates as less edits rather than none. I'm requesting adminship for two reasons; firstly to make my central chunk of work (deleting vandalism/advertising) easier, and secondly and most importantly to make other peoples lives easier. As a newbie user i'd ask admins for advice and help when it came to deleting random chunks of nonsense, or what to do with X page, and i found it could take a long time for any reply; no criticism of the administrators themselves, but 1,500-odd for 7 million users is a large ratio, and anything i can do to help out other users is for the better.

Ironholds 16:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination. Responses have shown that, among other things, i still have some way to go. Thanks to all those who supported, and all those who opposed but didn't get involved in the whole userbox thing. 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The other side of WP:AIV (i currently work on nominating them in the first place) and working on MfD's and AfD's would be a big one, since i feel they are currently neglected. I realise M/A discussion pages can be worked on by anyone, but i find that they can stay open for a long time after a visible consensus (keep/delete) has been achieved, wasting time. I'd also like to work on (something rather new to me, of course) page protection, particularly SALTing deleted pages. Apologies if my comments sound too deletion-friendly, but most admin tool tasks are deletion/restoration related.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say the expansion of the Pure Reason Revolution articles were quite good, but not really my best contributions. I work in a rather unknown field, and that's clearing userpages, checking them for improper text or more specifically advertisement. So i'd put the constant ad-removal as my best contribution. Userpages are still part of wikipedia and what the world see's wikipedia as, and should be kept to as high a standard as we expect articles to be kept.
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: A user who took offense to me nominating an essay on his userpage (about the nature of congress) for deletion is the only major one i can think of. I dealt with it by giving him pointers on how to improve the article, and when this failed then nominating it through MfD rather than CsD, hoping that either a consensus of editors would convince him i wasn't quote "biased" or alternately, if they found it appropriate, that i would then learn something.
Question from Dlohcierekim
4. Did you seek admin coaching or editor review after the last RFA?
A: I did, several weeks ago. I went through editor review, which went fine, but still have not had a reply to my request for admin coaching.

Optional questions from RyRy5

5. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A:Firstly, request semi-protection of the page (if it's a lengthy thing). After warning them about the edits, and assuming they dont heed said warnings and continue vandalising after the S-P has expired, compare the IP's; if they're similar it may be possible to rangeblock and solve the problem once and for all. If not, i'd request that the IP's be blocked; not for a limited time, since them coming back after the S-P expires shows they aren't just going to go away. I'd then keep an eye on the page; assuming the people involved dont have fixed IP's they may be back.
6. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A: Request a temporary block and withdrawal of admin powers to prevent further damage while i'm dealing with it. Secondly, check to see if there is any kind of email address/contact information for said admin available; it sounds likely that his account has been compromised at some point. If i can contact him, get him to change his password and advise using the secure login from now on. If not, keep the ban up on the account involved; if the admin himself returns it can be dealt with then. This is assuming the most likely scenario (compromised account) rather than an admin turning to vandalism (unlikely).

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Ironholds
Requests for adminship/O Keyes Requests for adminship/O Keyes 2

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Would you mind identifying your previous username? As it stands, we can only opine on the past 2+ months of edits, which isn't much time to base opinions on. Mahalo, Ironholds. --Ali'i 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was previously User:O keyes Where i had 2 failed RfA's (i wasnt quite sure the policy on how i should've numbered this one) but i've changed a lot since then in terms of temperament. A metaphor would be buying a pair of glasses; i'm no longer lashing about wildly with my walking stick trying to get somewhere and instead hitting everyone on the shins. Ironholds 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I added links to the previous RFAs. Gary King (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say one quick thing. If I had deleted my userboxes before making the RfA, a lot of the opposition would've had much less to say; 3 users would have had no other points, and this was the central point of 2 more (as of this moment). Deleting the userboxes would not have changed my beliefs, simply the way they were expressed. An argument has already occurred over whether or not the userbox is appropriate for use; if you look at the MfD discussion for it you'll see an overwhelming consensus that it is, so why am I being judged on that? more importantly, this should not be the sole arguing point against me. Surely you should look at my contributions as much as "what I find amusing" (I accept many editors have done so, and i have nothing really to say against them). I'm studying a politics degree, of course my userboxes are going to be political in nature. Ironholds 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I take it it wouldn't be appropriate for me to alter my userpage while the discussion is taking place? Ironholds 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the answer to that would be 'no' as it might be taken as trying to influence the outcome... CultureDrone (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would be inappropriate, as long as you commit to keeping the potentially offensive/divisive userboxen off your page if this RFA is succcessful. xenocidic (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you explain your belief in the right for insurgents in Iraq to kill soldiers who are trying to stabilize the country to ensure a safe future for the Iraqi people? Dunnsworth (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Does that relate to my admin-worthiness in any way? If you want to debate this with me then my talk page is a more appropriate location. Ironholds 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Some might disagree with your statement, such as around two-thirds of the American people :D. As far as I'm concerned, a user can express any any opinion on politics, religion, sexuality, etc., and as long as they show they are dedicated to improving Wikipedia and upholding policy, they are a perfectly legitimate editor. This does not mean I am supporting this user's RfA, merely defending him from misplaced assault on his beliefs. Any discussion about his beliefs should go on his user talk page, if any place at all. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support, I see no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Has over 9,000 edits and over 2 months of experiance. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually he has half that amount, see this for details. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's probably higher if you add in the old account. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, so he has over 9,000 from both accounts combined. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    His old account has 3,355 edits, which - added to the current account - puts him at 7,951 total as of now. That doesn't include deleted contribs and whatnot, though. I'll add that, since the user apparently does a significant amount of tagging for speedy deletion, as evidenced by a sample of their deleted contribs, a total of 9,000 isn't out of the realm of possibility at all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Correction: He has over two years of experience. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - for whatever my opinion is worth. He's been active across a broad spectrum of editing areas - sure there have been some possible erroes, but even experiended admins make mistakes..... :-) In my limited dealings with him, I've always found him courteous and friendly. What I am concerned about is that this RfA seems to be moving towards, not an opinion of his editing and/or contributions to WP, but to his choice of userboxes. Taking that to the logical extreme, that would imply that no editor with anything other than uncontroversial WP edit-related userboxes could be trusted to give an unbiased review to any article - atheists would be biased against religious articles, LGBT editors would object to anything said against Judy Garland, Protestant editors would be vandalising Catholic articles, Trekkies (or is it Trekkers these days ?) would be adding articles on quantum flux in photon torpedo matrices.. etc. etc. - none of which I believe to be the case (except maybe the Trekkie one.. :-)) - someone please tell me if I'm wrong. Editors MUST try and retain an editorial impartiality - for those occasions where they don't, WP has multiple review processes. As I read this, the particular userbox mentioned, which the candidate did not create themselves, has been approved for use and is probably used right now by other editors - so does that mean they're all unsuitable for adminship ? If so, then presumably, anyone with a 'I believe in religion x' userbox should be excluded from adminship for the same reason ? What if an editor was given adminship and then decided to add this userbox afterwards ? Does that mean they're suddenly not an impartial editor and will start biasing their editing ? Can we please drag this back to an opinion of whether this person would be a good administrator or not ? IF he exhibits a bias against religious articles, they can be easily reverted, and his adminship removed. Ok, that's the longest paragraph I've put on WP - I need a lie down :-) CultureDrone (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, and for all the Trekkers out there who I may have offended - my comment wasn't intended to be taken seriously :-) CultureDrone (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think the perceived problem is the "take you er, beliefs elsewhere." But, we can't take responsibility for all users feelings all the time. Might not someone question my neutrality because I identify as German-American or because I have an MLK userbox? Of course someone might. Whether or not they would be reasonable to do so, that's the thing. Dlohcierekim 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed - surely we should be less concerned with the personal beliefs/preferences of someone applying for adminship (which they may not even express via userboxes), and more concerned with the actual edits/decisions they make ? Besides, what happened to WP:AGF ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Moral support. Looks like this RfA won't pass, but I wouldn't oppose for that userbox. People are people, they all have unpopular views and biases. I'd rather know about them than not know, and if you delete something that someone cares about they will be unhappy with you regardless. Having your views out on the table doesn't hurt the collaborative process, it helps - anything that introduces clarity to debate (such as knowing where editors are ideologically coming from) assists people in coming to acceptable compromise. Whether that userbox is the absolute best way to alert people to your background is debatable, obviously. Some folks might be offended, but I think fewer than some in opposition would expect. What we're seeing mostly is people who are not offended worrying about those others who might be offended. The other oppose rationales have been perhaps a bit anemic, but that can be attributed to the dominance of the userbox issue. If, before this is closed, someone comes up with a solid non-userbox rationale to oppose I'll just say this: Being an admin isn't that important, and if you wait 6 more months or a year, it won't hurt you or Wikipedia. AvruchT * ER 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree - this doesn't look like it will pass, but I was just trying to ensure that a policy wasn't being adopted of opposing (or supporting) RfAs based on someone's userboxes. CultureDrone (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, Avruch, that was good. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Weak support from Neutral Please be more careful, per criticisms below. Please check more carefully for assertions of notability. Sometimes it's better to revisit an article rather than tagging it to soon. You also have options of tagging for improvement, redirect, or for AFD. Found 349 articles that had been deleted after being tagged for CSD. Mistakes may have been abberation. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Moral support, and the only thing keeping me from full-fledged support is a slight propensity towards bitey behavior. Learn to lighten up on the newbies and I think you'd make a fine administrator. For what it's worth, I find opposition based on userboxes (and this RfA is not the only case) to be rather silly. Shereth 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Firstly because I can't find anything that worries me, secondly because some of the oppose votes worry me greatly. Userboxes an issue? Please. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.  Channel ®   23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support (as userbox host) if only to counteract the.. people.. that opposed simply due to a bloody userbox. I would for one much rather an admin who is not afraid to state his views and work with others regarding his biases than one who acts all smiles on his user and then goes postal with the mop. I am in complete and utter shock over some users underneath me in the Oppose section. I am on the verge of feeling sick, and I have run completely dry on words. Ironholds is a solid experienced editor that I am lucky to get behind and support. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Supporting a candidate to spite the opposition is a terrible idea. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Not my intention. I do it to 1) try to balance out what I consider invalid oppose votes and 2) I would've supported even without this userbox nonsense. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Although I disagree with the user page deletion. Additionally, capitalizing your I's and some article writing would be appreciated. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support I've looked at your edits and don't see any reason why you can't be admin, you've edited a wide spectrum, got a lot of edits. Arienh4(Talk) 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Switched from neutral after studying the candidate's contribs and the other posts on this page further. (Question: have users whose opposition is based on irrelevant non-admin userboxes been hijacking this Rfa?) — Athaenara ✉ 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. I won't pretend I'm neutral on the userbox issue: I agree with most of those statements. OTOH, I also agree that prose may be less potentially divisive. However, nothing in the candidate's contribs suggests he might misuse the tools. Far worse are people who never admit to their biases and instead let them influence their editing. dorftrottel (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose based on last userbox in profile. Being an atheist is fine; being intentionally disrespectful towards others' beliefs is not, not for an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's not intentional disrespect. We're just finishing off an MfD dealing with exactly that userbox which seems to confirm it is acceptable; see here Ironholds 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps it's "acceptable" on Wikipedia, but it's condescending, disrespectful, and unbecoming for a potential administrator. I'm not a religious person, by the way. Keepscases (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Then i can remove the userbox. The box doesnt affect how i edit, my personal beliefs or anything else. Surely you should look at my contributions as well as personal beliefs. Ironholds 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree w/ Keepscases. Even though it isn't meant personally, it can cause problems with other editors (potentially simmering and unspoken). There are loads of userboxes, and this one is a little too up-front and I think many people can find it disrespectful considering the options. Ugh. Politics ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    In which case, surely that implies that the userbox in question should never have been approved for use - and, carrying that further, nor should any other religious/ethnic/sexual preference etc. related userbox. Then again, perhaps this isn't the forum to discuss that :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    <ec>Are userboxes like booby traps--designed to blow up the RFA's of the unsuspecting?? Why do we have userboxes that are so terrible that just using one makes one unacceptable to be an admin? No doubt the candidate is confused. I know that I am. Not one to wear my beliefs on my sleeve, I don't much care what others think of them. Sometimes people are too easily offended by userboxes, and I don't see that this one is enough to oppose for. Dlohcierekim 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    (e/c)I think the key difference here Ironholds is that while your personal beliefs will not affect how you edit, it can potentially and certainly effect how other editors view your edits. Say you speedy delete a church article for example from a new user. No matter how crappy the quality of the article, that userbox taints your decision in some editors' eyes. Or you page protect an article about a pro-life company. Or close an AfD about a Democratic presidential candidate. While you have every right to your opinions, and have every right to display them on your userpage, I completely understand Keepscases hesitation if you become a higher profile editor with the ability to block/delete/protect articles while at the same time displaying userboxes that hold exceedingly controversional views.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per this New users having speedy deletions on their userpage can be put off the project. Plus, there's nothing wrong with test pages in userspaces, which would suggest this user's misunderstanding of the speedy deletion criteria.(My mistake, it was nominated for MfD) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I was looking over the contributions and I was going to support, but I read #1 and it gives me pause. I am agnostic/atheist as well, but the ubox would make me mistrust any administrator who displayed it to judge fairly on those kinds of topics. MrPrada (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am atheist and my best mate is a devout Jehovah's Witness. Interestingly, I haven't killed him yet. I think Ironholds is by far capable of showing the same restraint. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose not enough article work, You're far too eager to be an admin, your userboxes are far too political for my taste, you're an overt deletionist and I don't really trust you enough. RMHED (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I'm going to have to oppose per the diff brought up by Peter Symonds. The history shows you originally tried for a speedy before taking it to MFD. Testing in the userspace should be encouraged, not discouraged. Too bitey, I'm afraid. xenocidic (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I sense power hunger here. Your userboxes concern me slightly, but I really shouldn't base my opinion of of that. More importantly, this leads me to believe you don't have enough experience. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I am also a bit unnerved by some of the userboxes and the candidate seems a bit too biased in regards to deletion/inclusion criteria. Plus, somewhat inexperienced (only an editor since April of this year on this account). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    April on this account, yes, if you read my statement you'll see I had another 2 years experience with a different account.Ironholds 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. There are several reason for my oppose. First, as mentioned above was this edit in which you MFD'd a userpage of a user who was trying to figure out formatting in his userspace. And this occurred on the same day that that particular user created his account. And what makes it worse? That user has not returned to Wikipedia. Also, I don't think you communicate enough. Communication is a valuable trait in an administrator and you only have 6 edits to Wikipedia Talk (both accounts combined). You do have a lot of User Talk, so I checked into it. Of your last 500 User Talk contribs, 395 of them were templates via Twinkle. Also, I don't think setting up an RFA while on a Wikibreak is the best idea in the world and your userbox at the bottom of your page is definitely not the best idea in the world. You can be Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc, I don't care. You can even put a userbox stating your religion or lack thereof, I don't care. But bashing other people's religious beliefs is unacceptable. But that userbox is just an aside, my real reason for opposing is for that MFD a couple days ago and for being uncommunicative. One other note, and it's incredibly minor and had no weight when I was composing this oppose, is your consistent use of "i" instead of "I". As a WikiGnome I found it rather annoying, but know that I am not and never would oppose someone for something that petty, I just wanted to point it out to you. Useight (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    If you read my statement, or even look at my edit history, you'll see that i've been on said wikibreak for 2-3 weeks and am still active, and that wikibreak means less edits, not none. It's not "bashing others beliefs", I put it because I found it humourous. And that editor hasn't been back, no, but that can't be traced directly to me. That's like stating that a person has cancer because he drank water. Yes, he has cancer. Yes, he drank water. But there's no link between the two. I've made probably 40 MfD's in the last few days, I dont see why one of them is so important. We expect admins to be good people, yes, but not saints. We are all humans. Ironholds 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I did read your statement. And I did look at your edit history. I don't just add on !votes without taking a very careful look. I have bolded my main reasons for opposing above. As for that particular editor disappearing, it's a correlation not a causation. You'll also find in my RFA criteria, that I find commenting on so many of the opposes to be bad form. Useight (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. It's my policy to oppose candidates who display divisive ideological content of any sort on their user page. Administrators make decisions with real-world consequences; they must avoid even the appearance of ideological bias.  Sandstein  20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yet, those biases are still there. I would prefer an administrator who accepts and informs us of his biases, so we can work together to ensure neutrality, than one who hides himself and his views (which are usually unearthed anyway, and in less-than-flatering circumstances). +Hexagon1 (t) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose You could worship your horses's left nut for all I care, but when you insult other people it makes you seem immature. Immature admins tend to do immature things.--Koji†Dude (C) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose. As a fellow atheist, I naturally have no problem with your userbox. However, your nomination statement says to me that you have little experience of WP:ANI, something infamously valuable as an administrator. More experience in that area and I would support next time. Thanks for self nomming, which is why this is a weak oppose. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Go for quality, not quantity. And the [[User:Davidhater] thing was not quality. Shapiros10 WuzHere  21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose. I think you should concentrate fully on your exams. Jack?! 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) After a nice discussion with Keeper, I am chaning to neutral. I appologize for the rushed oppose! Jack?! 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    ...and I should really be working. Got anything else? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have to say, i have no problem with opposing but can you come up with a better reason than "if we make you an admin you wont be able to contribute for a whole two weeks"? Ironholds 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I've also addressed this oppose on Jack's talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I promise this isn't about you're userbox. If I were you, I would have blown the box up to take up your entire User page just to mess with everyone. However, I am concerned with your lack of experience in basically anything non-Twinkle, especially in article contribution. I sympathize with you as an atheist, a gnome, and a Twinkle addict; but you're just not ready for adminship. Paragon12321 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - While I don't see it indicated direct by the candidate, I've seen some pretty bitey and borderline reports to WP:UAA, which I can only assume is an area where they will end up working. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Most of it's done through automated javascript tools, so i dont see how it could be bitey :S. Could you give me a link to examples? when i fail this nomination (probably through WP:SNOW) i'd like to know what i've done wrong other than express my beliefs in the "wrong way". Ironholds 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose-I don't give a damn about what the user has to say about religion, and I don't think a user's thought about religion should be a criterion. However, I am concerned about the user's lack of non-twinkle experience. If I was you, I would have waited for a reply on admin coaching before self-noming. I personally am scared about his only 32 mainspace talk edits. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    The preemptive MfD on User:Davidhater also concerns me. Admins should be welcoming and encouraging to new users.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I was floating around on MfD earlier and my main thought on seeing your massive pile of contributions to it was that "Wow, this guy needs to relax and stop scouring peoples' userspaces for trivial violations", but it didn't bother me at the time. Upon now connecting that to an RfA, it bothers me a lot more. ~ mazca talk 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    "trivial violations" on userpages; the only userpages i MfD are either a) blatant advertising or 2) three-page essays on how awesome a person is. I'm currently dealing with a 27-year-old Finnish male who believes that jesus appeared in his mirror to tell him he's the representative of god on earth and who exhibits all the signs of schizophrenia; i wouldnt describe his massive essay as "trivial". While some violations are worse than others, all are still violations. Ironholds 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Jesus personally got me Burger King once.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Reading your userboxes, I'm not sure whether to laugh at that or hire bodyguards. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    How about both, just to be on the safe side. ;-) --Koji†Dude (C) 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Most of it's done through automated javascript tools, so i dont see how it could be bitey.
    If you're running some sort of unauthorised bot on your account, you don't know policy and shouldn't be an admin. If you're blaming the automated tools you're using for all of your errors, you're unsuited to a role of responsibility, and should't be an admin. If you can't understand how crap username reports are bitey, you shouldn't be an admin. You and only you are responsible for every edit you make to Wikipedia, whether you use tools, bots, divine intervention or magic to edit - trying to shirk the responsibility for edits you made yourself is a most undesireable trait. Userbox isn't great either, and I'm just not seeing anything that makes me feel comfortable giving you access to additional tools at this time. I'm also not liking the attitude shown towards the 27-year-old Finish man - you're not a bloody doctor so you sure as hell don't decide someone is a scizophrenic. That's sort of pushing me towards the "Never, ever, ever" level of Opposition here, actually. Final words of advice, stop digging and withdraw your RfA. Nick (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, wow. I think maybe it'd be best to try to stay calm here. I think what he meant is that they could not be "bitey" because he was not typing the actual message itself - it was being filled in automatically by a tool. As such, the language couldn't possibly be agressive or unkind. Granted, it is certainly possible to bite newcomers using a template, but I thought I'd clairify what I thought the user was saying - there's no need to be angry here. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    How can a generic template not be bitey ? Any message left, especially inappropriately, saying to a new user "you're going to be blocked because you picked the wrong username" is one of the most bitey things anyone can do. Editors need to think what message is going to be left when they click on a button to report a username - they, and not the tool they are using is directly responsible for the message being left. Nick (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I agree that it is perfectly possible to bite newcomers using a template. Personally I would say the defense of "I was using an automated tool, how could I be biting?" is invalid. I was just trying to clarify that that was what the user was saying, not the significantly more invalid defense of "I was using an automated tool! It's not my fault!" CrazyChemGuy (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nick i am not all impressed by your lack of civilty and sensativity in your inital post   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    People complain about RfA all the time, and here we're labeling someone un-civil for saying "you shouldn't be an admin". What else does Oppose mean?--Koji†Dude (C) 02:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    I dont mind opposing thats your right, but the added remarks that are crude, rude and insulting about it is totally agianst my social and religious values (Anglican) I'm drafting a BIG rant in the neuteral section because of this.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think perhaps just the last line of Nick's oppose borders on incivility. Expunge that and all you have is a very blunt oppose, which are sometimes the best kind. This is something the candidate will listen to. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose I oppose too... Seems he's not well enough trained in the Wikipedia ways... There's much work to do in articles... --Creamy!Talk 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Stong Oppose I changed to oppose once i saw the message behind the userbox, it is disgraceful and hurtful to other editors. Perhaps if it was slightly different noone would be offended. It is very "im right your wrong" attitude and for that reason (+ your inexperiance) i'm of the opinion that you are incompetent to be an admin at this time.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose A user that can't even assume good faith and assist a new user should not be given the mop.--Lenticel (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I can't support someone who MFDed the test user page of a brand new user. There would have been no benefit in deleting it but a huge downside in that a potential editor has been scared off. --Hut 8.5 08:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose I clearly see that you are in hunger of power here. Hellboy2hell (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Can I ask what makes you say that? Ironholds 10:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. I think the userbox thing has been blown out of proportion, but (as an atheist who studies religion) I can see why it would be offensive. However, I am seeing poor judgement in places, (plenty of stuff has already been brought up) and some recognised content would be good- not everyone can pull a featured article out of the air monthly, but good articles and DYKs aren't too hard to come by. To expand on this point- you behave in a very gnomish way, but an article you actually list on your userpage (this one) has plenty of niggling little MoS flaws- short article with no stub tag, reference as a bare link, reference after a space and before punctuation (a pet peeve of mine), references below a navbox, missing some italics and speech marks, unneeded caps on a section title... Just look at how much I changed in this edit. See where I'm coming from with this? J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Speak of the devil... J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Strongish Oppose - Per a lot of above. MFDing the userpage of a newbie editor on his first day was maybe a bit OTT. The userbox issue doesn't bug me as much as others, although I'm not sure I'm keen on you openly trashing others beliefs. You're free to believe that Christianity or any other religion is a load of bullshit, but it might be a bit nicer if you didn't say so so obviously publicly. What bothers me most and makes this an Oppose rather than a Neutral is this diff; even if you are a Doctor/Therapist/Anything Vaguely Related in real life, I think your comment there was out of line (and there was yet more religion bashing). I don't see that as appropriate behaviour for an admin as, as I said in my comment on the AN thread, I think it's a personal attack. ChaoticReality 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. My apologies, i didnt mean it to sound so OTT. I have studied abnormal/clinical psychology to an advanced level, and was trying to make a point rather than a personal attack. Ironholds 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Things generally look good, but without knowing your other account, we can only make a judgment based on your current account. I found the following reports you made to WP:AIV in the past week that were turned down: [1], [2], [3]. Gary King (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    If you compare it to the actual number of AIV reports i made in that time, however, it's fairly justifiable. 3 out of X 100 aint bad, as was so nearly sung. Ironholds 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's why I went neutral. Gary King (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ahh ok then. Thanks for taking the time to comment :). Ironholds 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I want to think about this one a little. Contributions are OK, and I see that edit summary usage has improved greatly since the candidate's last RFA, which ended on 19 march. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Add'l comment - I believe the concern from many of the editors listed as Oppose, above, is not so much that the candidate has a userbox that discusses his personal religious beliefs (or, in this case, his lack of them), but rather that the userbox does so by linking the article Religion using the term "Imaginary Friends", which doesn't explain his beliefs so much as (appear to!) denegrate the beliefs of others. While I have no indication that the candidate would act in any way other than a neutral manner with regards to religious articles or editors, any user who has an article on religion deleted could immediately point to that userbox and scream "bias!". It isn't impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety, that causes the concern. As I said, I have no reason to think Ironholds would be anything other than a properly neutral admin in that regard, but it's enough of a concern for some to oppose on that basis. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment on the comment - surely if someone screams 'bias', then that's what the review processes are there for ? It's tantamount on judging someone on what they might do in the future, rather than what they have done in the past ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment on the comment on the comment. But isn't that what RfA partly is? Yes, it's judging an editor's contributions, but it is also (perhaps more importantly) judging someone on what they might do with regards to admin buttons. Notice that I have the same concern as UEZZ, but neither of us are opposing? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    NeutralFound 349 articles that had been deleted after being tagged for CSD. That's good. Unfortunately, there was a handful of declined speedy deletion taggings, some of which I agree with the declines. Please check more carefully for assertions of notability. Sometimes it's better to revisit an article rather than tagging it to soon. You also have options of tagging for improvement, redirect, or for AFD. One should really be careful about making accusations of sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 19:37, June 9, 2008 (UTC)
    Change to supportDlohcierekim's sock (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral This user simply appears not to be getting it. However, if (and hopefully when) they do get it I suspect they will make an excellent admin, and it is for this reason that I am not opposing - they are so close and yet so far. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I don't like the userboxes, but I agree with your statement, in principal, that they aren't as important as contributions. But I cannot help but feel that they certainly taint your future contributions, specifically your administrative decisions related to areas of the wiki that you will be able to edit. Keep up the good work, (I've seen you're good work, I think at MFD), happy to support next time if this is not a successful request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I'm not convinced about the way this user speaks about himself in the opening paragraph. Issues raised in oppose (minus the userbox one) all worry me, but you are definitely a good user, and I hope you continue doing what you're doing. Jack?! 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I'm pretty sure I can support after a few months. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Firstly, I would like to say I find the number of opposes based upon the atheist userbox rather worrisome. I don't think that that's any reason to oppose; the mere statement of some of the views I see on many userpages is just as "offensive" to me as the userbox in question seems to be to some of the people above. I personally chose some time ago not to display any political userboxes on my userpage because of the way I noticed I was prejudiced against some users based on their views, and I did not want other users to share similar prejudices towards me; however, I still maintain that if users choose to do so, I will do my best to make no objection or judgments based upon such userboxes. That being said, I don't see enough experience here to indicate that the user is ready for adminship, and that is the reason I can't support. Sorry, but come back later, perhaps after building some more articles and participating in more deletion discussions - I'm sure you'll do fine at that point. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral. Probably not a good idea to go on a wikibreak and simultaneously nominate oneself for adminship. Note: I will probably support this candidate in the future. — Athaenara ✉ 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) → [Switching to support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)]
    Hey, thanks for taking the time to comment. The wikibreak lasts until next monday, and i've still been contributing in large quantities, Wikiholism being as it is. But thanks for you comment, i'll stick it in my rather lengthy "what not to do next time" list :P. Ironholds 04:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I must have come in late, because I don't quite understand the concerns over the userboxes. I am interested in this editor's experience, or perhaps the lack thereof. I believe this editor will be a fine admin in the near-future, and I might recommend getting a bit more experience first and then revisiting the RfA process, maybe in the late autumn. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, I sincerely believe that this user means well, but things like the MfD and other errors around the deletion process make me too wary to support. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC).
  10. Nueutral for now. I do see from this user's contributions and his answers that he could be a trusted admin. I may move to support later on. --RyRy5 (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2008 (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.