IronDuke's edit count, using wannabe's edit count tool:

User:IronDuke

run at Tue Mar 20 12:54:16 2007 GMT

Category talk:	5
Category:	1
Mainspace	1561
Talk:	671
User talk:	341
User:	13
Wikipedia talk:	59
Wikipedia:	371
avg edits per article	3.70
earliest	23:15, 8 October 2005
number of unique pages	817
total	3022
2005/10 3 	
2005/11 112 	
2005/12 11 	
2006/1 	144 	
2006/2 	75 	
2006/3 	62 	
2006/4 	110 	
2006/5 	206 	
2006/6 	380 	
2006/7 	149 	
2006/8 	198 	
2006/9 	100 	
2006/10 274 	
2006/11	492 	
2006/12	188 	
2007/1 	272 	
2007/2 	200 	
2007/3 	46

First let me say that in no way was I attempting to hide my role in the arbcom case, although my leaving it out was indeed deliberate. If anyone cares to wade through it (and everyone should feel free, I've nothing to hide), I think they'll see that there ended up being a lot of bitterness around it, and a member of the community is no longer with us as an indirect result of it. As the case in question revolved around a user's offline identity, I felt it was fairest to him not to drag him into this. Indeed, the one thing that made me hesitate to accept Slim's kind offer was the fear that this user would be somehow pained or upset by it. If anyone has particular questions about the arbcom decision, I'm happy to answer any that don't compromise anyone's privacy. FWIW, I think in retrospect I ought not to have filed the case (I was pretty much a n00b, and wasn't aware of the stress it would cause), and I think arbcom was right to chastise me for OR. I will also point out that this was well over a year ago, for what that's worth, and I've learned a lot since then. BTW, I don't agree with some of the particulars of how my edits are being construed, but I want people to feel free to speak their minds. Again, I am happy to clarify any part of this if it's desired, but the arbcom case was upsetting enough the first time around for me to want to rehash it here. IronDuke 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from RfA page) 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) 00:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]