Final (167/7/8). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
Ironholds ( talk · contribs) – I wish to nominate Ironholds to become an administrator on en.wikipedia. Over the last few years of editing having created 19 Featured Works - 6 of which have reached FA status, and in excess of 180 DYK's, he is an exceptionally hard working editor who has consistently continued to improve others work, whilst presenting a solid image of a Wikipedian who knows what to do to better himself and to help others too. In all of my interactions both on and off wiki, Ironholds has never failed to stand up and be counted, nor has he ever failed to respond to criticism - constructive or otherwise - of his work. Having him as an administrator to this project will only serve to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I trust that you will finally give him the chance to prove his skills in handling this and associated tasks. Barking Fish 22:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Flame war. Irrelevant to Ironholds' RfA. |
---|
*Question nine is an interesting intellectual exercise, however I think that 1) it was answered in question 2, and 2) with a current tally of 51/0/1, I don't think that there really are strong cases against him at the moment. The possible damage from answering question 9, and having it read like a weak or phoned in answer, would lead me, if this were my RfA, to be apprehensive about answering the question. As to question 11, I dislike it immensely. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but Malleus Fatuorum looks like he's looking for an excuse to oppose. The question doesn't seem neutral. Now mind you, the underlying concept is worth addressing, but the wording itself just seems... aggressive. Now I could be wrong about it, but still, I find it disconcerting.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
(outdent) As someone who never gets involved in this "stuff", I'm finding it rather silly. If someone makes a bigotted statement that does not (by definition or not by definition) mean that they are a BIGOT. So Sven Manguard says that Malleus has made an "aggressive" statement. Does that mean he is saying that Malleus is an AGGRESSOR? Should Sven be blocked for making a personal attack? Anyone who has worked with Malleus knows that he is anything BUT an aggressor — he just doesn't suffer fools. So now I've called someone a FOOL (personal attack?) and I will have to be blocked! Just stop all this silliness and get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than having pathetic petty squabbles. Grow up kids! Goodnight.-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply
|
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
Despite this long series of messages voicing concern here, not one person bothered to actually post anything helpful to the user. Did it not occur to anyone, especially the seasoned admins participating here, to consider what the problem may be? If this truly is a case of a vandal, who cares if they were sternly told "Knock it off or you may be blocked"? If you're inclined to get uppity for any reason other than being a procedure Nazi, you must feel that the user has not been adequately assisted and given the appropriate information. So why only complain here and not also go there to fix? I would argue that the bigger issue is that we have these long-winded automatically generated notices being spammed on user talk pages without any consideration to the individual situations. This user appears to me to have a misunderstanding of redirects. A personal message explaining that seems most appropriate, as such I wrote one.
While Ironholds did jump the gun here (which no one pointed out was not to an extreme to warrant the far reaching conclusion that he may engage in a deletion spree), the bigger problem is the accepted procedure itself. It's another fine example of how Wikipedia wasn't designed to scale. In order to save time and keep up with the seemingly insurmountable workload, everything has become automatic and impersonal. And processes have become more important than editors. My point is, perhaps energy would be better served evaluating faulty process designs rather than scalding editors over isolated situations you find yourself upset about but not willing to address yourself. If he as an admin-hopeful should have known better, any admin who then saw it should have known how to address it... yet not one did. Lara 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I mean, sure, I think I'm right and Tarc's wrong, but I always think that. Readers'll have to make up their own minds. :)— S Marshall T/ C 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Final (167/7/8). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
Ironholds ( talk · contribs) – I wish to nominate Ironholds to become an administrator on en.wikipedia. Over the last few years of editing having created 19 Featured Works - 6 of which have reached FA status, and in excess of 180 DYK's, he is an exceptionally hard working editor who has consistently continued to improve others work, whilst presenting a solid image of a Wikipedian who knows what to do to better himself and to help others too. In all of my interactions both on and off wiki, Ironholds has never failed to stand up and be counted, nor has he ever failed to respond to criticism - constructive or otherwise - of his work. Having him as an administrator to this project will only serve to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I trust that you will finally give him the chance to prove his skills in handling this and associated tasks. Barking Fish 22:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Flame war. Irrelevant to Ironholds' RfA. |
---|
*Question nine is an interesting intellectual exercise, however I think that 1) it was answered in question 2, and 2) with a current tally of 51/0/1, I don't think that there really are strong cases against him at the moment. The possible damage from answering question 9, and having it read like a weak or phoned in answer, would lead me, if this were my RfA, to be apprehensive about answering the question. As to question 11, I dislike it immensely. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but Malleus Fatuorum looks like he's looking for an excuse to oppose. The question doesn't seem neutral. Now mind you, the underlying concept is worth addressing, but the wording itself just seems... aggressive. Now I could be wrong about it, but still, I find it disconcerting.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
(outdent) As someone who never gets involved in this "stuff", I'm finding it rather silly. If someone makes a bigotted statement that does not (by definition or not by definition) mean that they are a BIGOT. So Sven Manguard says that Malleus has made an "aggressive" statement. Does that mean he is saying that Malleus is an AGGRESSOR? Should Sven be blocked for making a personal attack? Anyone who has worked with Malleus knows that he is anything BUT an aggressor — he just doesn't suffer fools. So now I've called someone a FOOL (personal attack?) and I will have to be blocked! Just stop all this silliness and get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than having pathetic petty squabbles. Grow up kids! Goodnight.-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply
|
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
Despite this long series of messages voicing concern here, not one person bothered to actually post anything helpful to the user. Did it not occur to anyone, especially the seasoned admins participating here, to consider what the problem may be? If this truly is a case of a vandal, who cares if they were sternly told "Knock it off or you may be blocked"? If you're inclined to get uppity for any reason other than being a procedure Nazi, you must feel that the user has not been adequately assisted and given the appropriate information. So why only complain here and not also go there to fix? I would argue that the bigger issue is that we have these long-winded automatically generated notices being spammed on user talk pages without any consideration to the individual situations. This user appears to me to have a misunderstanding of redirects. A personal message explaining that seems most appropriate, as such I wrote one.
While Ironholds did jump the gun here (which no one pointed out was not to an extreme to warrant the far reaching conclusion that he may engage in a deletion spree), the bigger problem is the accepted procedure itself. It's another fine example of how Wikipedia wasn't designed to scale. In order to save time and keep up with the seemingly insurmountable workload, everything has become automatic and impersonal. And processes have become more important than editors. My point is, perhaps energy would be better served evaluating faulty process designs rather than scalding editors over isolated situations you find yourself upset about but not willing to address yourself. If he as an admin-hopeful should have known better, any admin who then saw it should have known how to address it... yet not one did. Lara 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I mean, sure, I think I'm right and Tarc's wrong, but I always think that. Readers'll have to make up their own minds. :)— S Marshall T/ C 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply