Headbomb (talk·contribs) – When it comes to Wikipedia, Headbomb has not only been there, done that, and got the T-shirt, he's bought the T-shirt store and set up a successful local franchise. He’s done a bit of everything, participating in debates on AfD, asking for page protection, and spending lots of time on the bot noticeboards and technical areas of the village pump. He’s the only seriously active member of the Bot Approvals Group who doesn’t have the bit. He's no slouch when it comes to content either, being a key player in getting a major topic like Quark through FAC and doing lots of work in science-related articles, where he's dealt well with the onslaught of quackery and pseudoscience pushers that turn up in that area.
As you can see from the "4" at the top of the page, Headbomb has had a couple of goes at RfA before, but all of them are in the distant past, and they all had the usual pitfalls one can expect from self-nominations. That isn't the case this time around, so I hope we now get a general opinion that it's long past time that Headbomb should have the tools. There are clear and obvious areas he can make a difference to the project, and he should be allowed to do so. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: In no particular order, I'd be involved with bot blocks (I've got plenty of BOT/BAG experience to know when to block and when to unblock), gnoming some protected articles [e.g. updating bibcodes on a protected article in the same manner Bibcode Bot (talk·contribs) would since the bot doesn't have admin rights], dealing with edit protect requests/WP:RFPP, the occasional revdel for egregious BLP violations, and revdels in when dealing with defamation/doxxing of our editors (with possible kickbacks to the oversight people in case of particularly sensitive/damaging information).
For an example of rogue bot where that would have been needed, I'd have blocked Yobot (talk·contribs) long before we'd have needed an ARBCOM case about it. We might still have needed an ARBCOM case about it, but I know I would have stepped in as an admin well before there was a need for the case. To be clear, Yobot currently operates both with consensus and within the scope of its BRFAs, so I'm not arguing that it needs to be blocked now. But it wasn't always the case in the past.
One thing I'd do more is take a look at old deleted journal articles deleted for WP:TOOSOON reasons (e.g. Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry) that may now be notable. It'd often be much easier to undelete and update articles which are now notable than rewrite them from scratch.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: See User:Headbomb/My work for an overview. As for what I'm proudest of, for content, I'd say the Quark featured article / the List of baryons featured list. The understanding the later made me switch my Master's thesis topic from the photovoltaism of organic semi-conductors to particle physics instead. I'm also quite proud of creating particle (an absolutely vital topic in science) / bouncing ball (something seen by nearly every high school/undergrad student, but often approximated to the point of hiding very interesting physics). I'm a physicist by trade, and I felt I've written good stuff (helped by others of course) on high importance general interest topics. The debate on the validity of particle as an article even led to the creation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC!
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: In 10 years / 190,000+ edits, it's pretty impossible to avoid conflicts, but I've nonetheless manage to keep a squeaky clean block log. I have opinions, strong ones, and I'm one who would rather act than let things stagnate. Sadly, for a lot of people, having an opinion and being WP:BOLD in some areas means being disqualified for adminship, because they can only support admins who agree with them. I never had any tolerance for anyone lording their position in content/policy disputes (or any other efforts to create special classes of editors like WP:AEE, see the deletion logs), and I'd hold myself to the same standards I hold any other admin out there. In case of content disputes, I tend to stick to the issues when possible, rather than have meta debates on the personalities of those involved. In practice, the most heated disputes are with a handful of people who hold extreme/absolutist positions over interpretations of policy, or who demand exceptions so their pet subject gets exempted from normal standards.
In practice, what this would mean is that I'd rather keep my voice as an editor, than get involved as an admin in AfD/policy debates and the like. In issue where I'm uninvolved (usually BOT-related disputes), I try to be a good mediator, and balance the concerns of the complainers with what can be reasonably done to address them.
With some 190K+ edits, it's impossible to not have ruffled some feathers over the years, or to have had the occasional bad day, but I don't think anyone could accuse me of WP:NOTHERE or to be in danger of abusing the tools.
[ Point of information for those who never heard of it before: WP:AEE was moved to a page in userspace. – Athaenara ✉ 11:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) ][reply]
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
4. I'm greatly concerned by your aggressive conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article, which is very recent. There were also concerns about your demeanour in your previous RFA runs, and though I'd usually largely disregard them after such a long time, I'm concerned that you are still prone to such an aggressive approach to discussion even after all this time. Do you have any comments?
A: Lourdes below addresses most of this. For the rest, see answer to #3 about admins abusing their positions. An admin shoehorned a non-gender dispute into a gender dispute so they could use their admin position to place the article under discretionary sanctions and stiffle debate. ARBCOM later clarified that the article wasn't under sanction, even though the template on the article said that it was, and that the admin in question said she placed the article under discretionary sanction, and that I'd be blocked taken to WP:AE for removing them. I was harassed off-wiki as well for this (you can see some of the nastiness and character assassination in [1]), although I've got no idea who in that debate it was that wrote this. As far as I'm concerned, things returned to normal when the discretionary template got removed. That's all I have to say on this issue here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where the admin in question threatened to block you? Genuine question - I've read the ANI, the article talk page, the AfD, and your and their talk pages from the period, and I can't see it (though it is entirely possible I've missed it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, the specific threat was "If you continue to disrupt the article, including by removing the tag, I will take this to arbitration enforcement." So not a specific threat to block me directly, but given the failure to observe WP:INVOLVED in that same dispute, I was highly concerned of getting blocked by that admin. I've updated the above for accuracy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taking an issue to Arb Enforcement is also not an admin action, and nothing the admin did or said in that discourse (as far as I can see) was an admin action - so your continued insistence that there was a breach of WP:INVOLVED still appears incorrect to me. Can you show us an example of actual admin action taken in that incident that actually amounts to a violation of WP:INVOLVED? And are you still insisting that you will not address the question of your own gross incivility? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a direct statement on the matter of incivility, sure maybe I could have handled that with more tact. But I have severe issues with abuses of powers, or being told I'm some anti-women sexist when I put quite a lot of effort in being fair and open minded to everyone, regardless of gender identification, and am extremely supportive of gender-gap reducing efforts. Turns out there was no admin action taken by SV, but SV did make this into a gender dispute so she could slap the article with a sanction, the template clearly said that the article was under sanction, and SV claimed, black on white that she placed the articles under sanction, and the sanction page clearly says that only admins may revoke sanctions. So what's an non-admin editor to think in that situation? It took an AE to clarify that, despite SV's insistence that the article was under sanction and the template saying the article was under sanction, that it wasn't actually under sanction because no official admin actions were logged. Would I have reacted this way if a non-admin behaved in the same was SV did? No, because there no one would have a position of power over someone else. Would I react this way if I was on the receiving end of a complaint about admin actions I may take? No, because then I have the position of power, and the standards of civility/behaviour are much higher. Much like bot operators have heightened expectations on communication (WP:BOTCOMM), so do admins have heightened responsibilities on communication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Boing! said Zebedee is getting at is that RfA is a place to show everybody you can dial it back and bite your lip, no matter how frustrated you get over things. This note from Dennis Brown explains it better than I can here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you're still getting it wrong about what Discretionary Sanctions notices are (which is a big WP:IDHT thing) and you are continuing to make what seem like baseless accusations against SlimVirgin. I don't see anywhere where she (or anyone else) accused you of being an "anti-women sexist". Anyway, no more questions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, a lot of this was clarified at the AE, and I consider the issue settled. People had concerns during my RfBAG too, yet my handling of WP:BRFAs or WP:BOTPOL has never been problematic. I don't see why it'd be any different here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. You've had three previous RfAs. Why do you think they didn't succeed? Have you made any changes to your editing behaviour in response?
A: Honestly, they were so long ago that I don't particularly recall. A bit of WP:NOTNOW for the first one. On specific things I remember, one that came up was low edit summary usage, so started using edit summaries (I think I have something like 300 out of 190,000+ without edit summaries, pretty much all from my pre-RFA days). The optional RFA poll I took back in February mentioned CSD logs, so I got Twinkle and do CSDs via Twinkle now to have a log of CSDs. There are other more substantial comments, which more or less boils down to "Headbomb can have an attitude, this is good" vs "Headbomb can have an attitude, this is bad", and my answer to that has been addressed in #3. However you feel about me, I have an extreme dislike of arguments from authority, or the "I'm an admin, so my voice is more important" mentality. I feel the question should be "Will I make good use of the tools, or abuse them?" rather than "Did you piss people off in the past, or does everyone like you?".
For an example of a position of responsibility I have on Wikipedia, I'm involved at WP:BAG and WP:BRFAs, and I've religiously stayed away from approving completely non-controversial tasks simply because I was involved in the discussions that led to those bots being requested (e.g. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TokenzeroBot). Likewise, I have template editing rights, and you don't see me using those rights in disputes concerning templates. I don't intend to behave any differently with respect to WP:INVOLVED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Do you have any intention to perform any admin actions related to arbitration enforcement or discretionary sanctions?
A: Hell no. The further away I am from AN/ANI/AE or any other drama boards, the better. I intend to focus on technical areas. I'm not even interested in closing AFDs. I'd much rather keep my voice and let others decide. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. A hypothetical scenario: you're working with a small group of editors on an FA promotion, but you can't agree on a particularly controversial point. While discussion proceeds normally, one editor is clearly becoming agitated that others aren't agreeing with them. They abandon the discussion, then when consensus arrives at an edit they don't like, they stubbornly revert the edit and keep reverting anyone who tries to reinstate the consensus edit. You're the only admin involved in the discussion; when you try to reinstate the edit with an edit summary referring to the talk page discussion, they blank the section of the article containing the edit with an edit summary "admin Headbomb is WPINVOLVED and is an ASSHOLE". Then they blank the talk page, move the article to Headbome is a ASSFaCE, then they post on your talk page "you are a ADMIN ABUSE and i will SUE YOU IN COURT FOR ERASING MY WORK", then they blank your talk page, then they restore the legal threat but now it contains your real, full name, then they replace the content of the article with a 200MB image of a penis. They then begin rapidly adding the same image to 1755 (band), ADA collider, Andreyev Acoustics Institute, Baikal Deep Underwater Neutrino Telescope, bioRxiv, Bouncing ball, and so on. Keeping WP:INVOLVED in mind, how do you respond?
A: I'd probably laugh and then report them to WP:ANI (with a recommendation for block+revdel/oversight), and let someone uninvolved handle them. I'd rollback the blanking/penis images under vandalism, but as far as admin actions are concerned I'd leave to others. If I felt something was so egregious that it needed to be immediately revdel'd, then I'd revdel it and post a notice on WP:AN saying I did so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I think you had a little more fun writing that hypothetical than you're supposed to. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
8. Can you describe, in your own words, what "discretionary sanctions" are and how they work?
A: From my experience, I'd describe them as holy 'thou shall nots' issued on high by ARBCOM to deal with the worst shit shows of Wikipedia, giving licenses to admins to rain down holy fire issue blocks and bans on offenders without remorse as they see fit. As for the technicalities behind them, and how they work, I can't say I'm particularly interested in dealing with them given the drama that goes with them. I quite suspect how they work varies with the exact sanction. If I ever felt the need to apply such discretionary sanctions, I'd certainly read up on them before hand so I didn't fuck up on procedure, or forget to give prior warnings, or whatever else is involved/required before invoking sanctions.
tl;dr version: Admins who are not interested in running WP:ADMINBOT are not judged for not knowing about bot policy, I'm not interested in dealing with WP:AE stuff and discretionary sanctions, so I don't particularly see the relevance here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Very clear net positive, and someone who we want to have the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very easy support: fully qualified and trustworthy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Headbomb is a solid candidate, who has a serious amount of breadth in not only experience, but knowledge as well. They're a little light on the counter-vandalism side but this is heavily complimented by their content contributions. Headbomb has not only been here a long time, they've also been here a long time and racked up enough contributions to make wikichecker break -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 08:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing answers to questions (namely Q8) - that on its own rarely makes me withdraw a support, but with the evidence brought forward in the oppose section its unfortunately a little too much -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (edit conflict × 3) I've had a look over the user's recent history and nothing immediately stands out as being a problem. For starters, they've got a clean block log and a nice pie chart with just over 64% of their edits being to mainspace. Their AfD votes, whilst somewhat sparse, typically coincide with the result. The sparsity of their votes shouldn't be an issue as they haven't declared an interest in working in that area. Having a look at the pages created by the user might give pause to some people given the amount of recent deletions, but these have just been redirects (R from ISO 4) to pages that weren't made by the user, so there are no problems there either. The only problem I'm seeing is that they've expressed interest in working at RFPP, but most of their edits there are from years back, with only 8 being from this year. I don't think that'll be too much of an issue though, because this user will be a net positive. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following the answer to Q8. I could've let the other issues slide, but that bombshell of an answer (specifically the the first sentence) is not an acceptable response from a candidate. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see any problems ahead, and several benefits. Has experience in areas we need -- Longhair\talk 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Withdrawing support after responses to questions asked here shows this admin could be a little hot headed under pressure. -- Longhair\talk 03:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hate this dumb cliche, but I actually did think you were an admin already. I was very confused when I saw this :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (edit conflict × 2)This candidate actually has created some articles and done some good content work, which is a good sign. I am dubious about Politcal Anal. and some other redirects since deleted, however articles such as Bouncing ball more than make up for that. The candidate has the template editor userright and clearly has used it, having created over 300 templates - IMO this is a good sign of trustworthiness as had Headbomb really wanted to break something, the opportunity to do mass template vandalism with automated tools has been present for a while :P In general, this candidate's technical bot and template experience would be of great use to Wikipedia. - In short the admins would benefit from having Headbomb in their group. Dysklyver 08:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. First class editor, lots of experience in needed areas of admin activity. Every reason to expect the candidate would be a better contributor WITH the toolset. BusterD (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully, I am withdrawing my support because of the answer to quesiton 8 above. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contrary to what Anarchyte says above, with 26 reasonably discussed !votes in this year's Afds, Headbomb is quite capable in the Afd space too. Obviously, apart from their welcome contributions in other administrative areas. Lourdes 10:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Headbomb. In my tenure here, I don't recall withdrawing support after having provided it. Your increasingly aggressive outburst painting arbcom+administrators in a tainted tone, as you have done in Que 8, is not acceptable to me. You're a great editor and there is no doubt I would love to work with you on improving articles. But I would request and suggest that you become less antagonistic towards administrators in general. I'm sure all it would take from you is a properly drafted apologetic withdrawal statement and perhaps a year of calm editing to come back here. Sorry again Headbomb. My apologies to Ritchie333 too here. Lourdes 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Incredibly experienced in niche areas where we have poor administrator coverage. I've worked closely with Headbomb in BAG-related areas, and he would be an asset to the project as an admin. No reservations whatsoever. ~ Rob13Talk 11:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Genuinely thought this user was already an admin. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 11:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long Term user well versed in policy has been around since May 2006 and had his last RFA in 2009.Clear Netpositive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always thoughtful, calm and pretty patient. Also well informed. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Net positive (great bot work, for example), but I would advise starting slowly and taking a step back in order to insert more calm into certain disputes. #Kusma (t·c) 13:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom.Mrmei 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Net positive user. I'd say the few drawbacks listed in the oppose section are far outweighed by the rest of his experience and work. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WP:NETPOSITIVE. Clueful and active user who would has enough experience to use the sysop tools well. Everyone has bad days, and I'm not concerned with a one-off incident of an angry comment. I can't find anything else like that myself, and I would hope that that one edit doesn't nullify the usefulness of the other 191,747 that the user has here. As to the lack of knowledge regarding discretionary sanctions, that's something they'll be easily able to pick up on the job. Admins are just users with a couple of extra buttons, and I can trust that this user will use those buttons well overall. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have known Headbomb for many years, mostly through his activity at the Academic Journals Wikiproject. His knowledge of procedures, policy, guidelines, etc is vast and his contributions to the project have been just as vast. While I have disagreed with him occasionally, I find him receptive to arguments. He is very decisive, something several people here apparently interpret as aggressiveness or arrogance, but that is not how I see it. Headbomb as an admin will be a tremendous positive to the project. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC) PS: I was very much with Headbomb at the philoSOPHIA issue, where we were faced with absolutely ridiculous claims of discretionary sanctions, accused of being against women, etc. Subsequent developments fully vindicated Headbomb's stance during that affair. --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Firstly I’m going to offer a response to the main reason in the oppose votes. Discretionary sanctions are, as the name suggests, discretionary. Like all editors, admins aren’t perfect and the outcome of the ANI thread mentioned in Q4 appeared just to me per WP:INVOLVED. Admins are expected to be civil per WP:ADMINCOND but I see no reason to suspect that Headbomb will misuse the tools to gain the upper hand in debates. I virtually never swear on-wiki and Headbomb could have worded their complaints at the ANI thread much better but swearing in itself does not constitute personal attacks. We all get angry at times, this was a few months ago and don’t think it is a millstone that needs to be but around Headbomb’s neck. Recognising mistakes and changing is a virtue but so is sticking to your guns.
Aside from the main point of the oppose votes, the usual requirements check out: 81% of AfD votes and 73% of AfD nominations match the outcome, article CSD stats are difficult to assess but deletion isn’t the only tool in the admin package and Headbomb has a wide range of Wikipedia activities, so there’s a need for the tools.
Support due to the incredible body of work and accolades over the years. Civility is a concern, but those incidents are rare, Headbomb has been dedicated to the site for many years, and I don't get the impression Headbomb would abuse admin status in situations that do come up. Adamtrain (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 20:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supported last time, supporting this time. Very competent in the areas he's expressed an interest in working in. Man, I'm glad I don't have to go thru one of these anymore. Not allowed to get mad even once in the 12-24 months before an RFA. Hope it turns around for you.--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I supported last time and am happy to support again. Headbomb is perfectly competent in the areas he wishes to work in and I'm not convinced by the "temperament" concerns. So maybe he's a little grouchy every now and then but unless you're Commander Data without his emotion chip, chances are this is standard of nearly all people - even me. As for all the existing admins with temperament issues, as claimed below...start to work on removing them if they're that concerning. Acalamari 21:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good content creation, bot work, AFD participation. Don't see one dispute as a reason to oppose. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Always happy to see edits from headbomb on my watch list. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And this is "support", not just "moral support". I agree in particular with Randykitty and Floquenbeam. I took a good, hard look at that philoSOPHIA thing, and what I'm seeing is a long-term and generally clueful user get briefly upset and (oh, the horror!) use some curse words, over a dispute in which the ultimate outcome of an RfC was that his position was also the consensus. (Hint: if you see Randykitty on one side of a dispute, that's probably going to be the correct side.) And now, I'm seeing numerous reflexive opposes, because, after all, if somebody sounded angry once and a lot of other editors are opposing at an RfA, well, that's a good reason to oppose. The classic case of a good editor who has been around long enough to have made some enemies and who therefore cannot pass RfA. This is an experienced user who will be a net positive as an administrator, and certainly will not break the wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have opposed based on this edit and more importantly revert 1 & revert 2, (yes my responses were sub-optimal as well), BUT his subsequent comment & edit demonstrated he can take a step back and take a more measured approach. Find bruce (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Headbomb is a hard worker and is genuinely committed to building a better encyclopedia. I am confident that they will use the tools to make Wikipedia a better resource. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This doesn’t seem to be going well so I shall lend my moral support. While I appreciate the concerns, I still believe we would have a net positive. Have always appreciated HB’s tremendous work. Schwede66 23:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
#Support Clearly not going so great so this is really a moral support. I've only looked at Boing's comments below (because, of course, I have a great deal of respect for what Boing says!), but I disagree with him on this. Looking through the interaction on the philosophia mess, I don't see any bad faith editors, just two sides talking past each others. Headbomb, clearly, did not understand the nature of a discretionary sanctions notice (distressingly familiar to me), but that's not so unusual. Personally, I'd give him (and, apparently, he is a him) a pass on that one because the good faith is apparent on both sides of the debate. Sometimes things just don't work out and we shouldn't hold that against anyone. --regentspark (comment) 00:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw support after reading the response to Q8. Either you actually believe what your wrote or you're so pissed off with the way this RfA is going that you can't restrain yourself. Either way, no way. Boing was right. I was wrong. --regentspark (comment) 01:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have not participated in one of these requests for adminship before so do not know the full criteria of what is required of an administrator, but I support on the basis of a good content creation record. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good content creator. Committed editor. Net positive to project by a wide margin. Also, we desperately need another administrator at BAG. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – After seeing your answers to the questions I was put off from casting a support, but from what I've seen from you you can keep your cool, and plus, admins don't need to know everything. J947( c ) (m) 01:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The two major opposers are patently wrong. Andrew D is out to stir old disputes, of which he was just plain wrong at the DYK and he's continued to mis-characterize the dispute. Boing! is also wrong. SV injected gender politics into a dispute and then gaslighted Headbomb. Then she complained at AE when he became angry about gender-politics being injected. That said, Headbomb is guilty of being easily baited and their temperament is problematic. I'm on a verge of an oppose for that, but I can't join that list which contains a whole lot of "per Boing!" knowing how the issue was twisted. Also, candidates Q8 answer and their own nom's concerns also bother me and I may switch to neutral yet.--v/r - TP 01:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I respect the comments of those who take oppose. We have to work with people and people sometimes make mistakes. I believe this user can grow and serve the role of admin well--give them a mop and bucket.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I type this it would appear that this RfA will not pass, but personally I am comfortable with Headbomb using the tools properly. It is clear that nearly everyone respects his contributions and dedication to Wikipedia, and it is also clear that he cares a great deal. Sometimes that may not manifest itself in the best way, and perhaps a delete and rewrite of the first draft or two of a response before hitting the save button might be in order, but I do not get the impression that this poses a risk of him abusing the tools. In reading the full context of the dispute (whew!), I am not sure I fault Headbomb for his initial reaction, given that he did not know that any editor could place the tag and was essentially singled out for a notice regarding it. Would it have been infinitely preferable if cooler heads had prevailed, on both sides? Sure. But I don't think it's fair to say "he's not admin material" when there were several other respected administrators who were equally to blame for that situation escalating like it did. And I definitely don't mean to imply that I think those administrators aren't worthy of respect; I absolutely think they are. But that's my point. I don't judge them for that one incident, nor do I believe they should be. So let's give Headbomb the same courtesy. CThomas3 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT –Hell, no! Where is a Voltaire when one needs one the most! I strongly support HB for his standing up publicly (as critisized on talk) against "discretionary" admins' behaviour, in spite of his behaviour involving borderline aggressivity. But where did the wisdom of hurting sticks and bones go? HB as admin will effect more improvement of WP than all these progressive, liberal, urban, civil, neutral, correct, ... admins achieve, threatening with sanctions for opposing their beadles in discussion, simply when their pertinent setting in the discussion at hand is made public, or who close a thread with TWO entries, when asked about some possible glitch, ... This won't change the majority, nor the ruling class. Purgy (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support In all honesty, I have not looked deeply enough into the shitshow raised in Q4 and numerous opposes to form my own opinion on the bottom of that matter. The point is that I do not care much if the worst I could find is the candidate being uncivil at the end of a long and tedious ANI thread, and digging in thereafter. Not only does the candidate intend to work in areas where the risk of controversy is minimal, but I also have the feeling (based on seeing them around) it will be so even after a couple of months of activity, and I therefore assign a low priority on the temperamental score. I will readily admit it is a gamble (even if as votes look, I am not going to pay the margin call); maybe a year and ten ArbCom cases later, the opposers will have won "I told you so" rights. But I do not see a realistic scenario of tool abuse and a WP:NETPOSITIVE seems virtually certain. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Does excellent work on science articles and is prepared to take a stand against cyber bullying. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support Seem him around, seems to be a bit of a nippy sweety but knows his way around WP, and gets the job done. Hard worker who stands up to the occasional bolshie administrator. Well worth supporting him as as admin, and would do again in any future vote. scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose I didn't like the candidate's approach to the bouncing ball topic. This topic has been around for a long time, as discussed at AfD and DYK. Rather than develop the existing pages, the candidate wrote his own draft in user space and then started nominating earlier work for deletion. When stymied at one page, he then got another page speedily deleted. The candidate justified this action by reference to WP:TNT but that is not deletion policy nor even a guideline. He also seems to be involved in the latest round of drama about Betacommand and I get the impression that he has a similar, high-handed attitude, as noted in the previous RfAs. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This argument does not really hold up. I didn't see anything done wrong by Headbomb in either of those discussions relating to bouncing ball. He was civil, and making well-reasoned arguments in both. As far as the Betacommand issue, he has left two comments in the current RFC, both of which were simple !votes on different proposals. One of them was very well thought-out, and the other was an unobjectionable Vote per (username). I find no plausible explanation for objecting to his participation there.Tazerdadog (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate seems to have been edit-warring with Fram at that RfC: [2]; [3]; [4]. This seems an elementary breach of our behavioural guidelines per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others". Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of editors at that RfC who have been basically acting like children; Headbomb ran across one of them but tried to work through the nonsense. Characterizing their behaviour as edit-warring isn't really fair to the situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, I missed that. Editwarring is indeed a serious concern. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I was really hoping to be able to switch from Neutral to Support, but Headbomb's dismissal of my Q4 and refusal to address his own part in that unfortunate incident (while apparently still blaming it entirely on admin abuse) is arrogant (and arrogance was one of the Oppose reasons given in the previous RfA). WP:ADMINACCT is a very important part of being an admin, as is accepting and responding to criticism, and if Headbomb won't even answer questions about recent non-admin actions here at his RfA, then I absolutely can not suport him for admin. Headbomb's work here has been excellent, but he is, unfortunately, still temperamentally unsuited for adminship, in my opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, unfortunately, this "copy edit" makes things worse by continuing with his insistence that placing a DS notice is an admin action and therefore admin abuse - that was all explained clearly at the ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for that specific criticism now that things have moved on a little, so I'll just leave it that I'm disappointed in the outcome at Q4. I was very much open to being persuaded that it was not going to be a future concern and that I could switch to Support, but it was not to be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning to say any more here (partly because I don't want to look like I'm badgering), but I must make a comment after seeing the latest few supports and feeling there might be some misunderstanding. Folks are saying that it's perfectly understandable that someone can have an angry episode now and then and it is a forgiveable failing, and I wholeheartedy agree!
That's not my issue at all, my issue is with the way Headbomb responded to my question about it. Had I seen something like "Yes, that was bad, I really shouldn't have reacted that way", I'd probably be in the Support section now. It's the refusal to face up to it that's the problem - instead we saw a doubling down by just digging his heels in, still blaming everyone else for it, and repeating his unfounded accusations. That lack of self-awareness and steadfast refusal to consider his own failings in that incident are what make me believe that Headbomb does not have the temperament for admin - not the initial episode itself.
Anyway, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, jusy trying to clarify my oppose rationale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, in turn, don't want to sound like I'm badgering the opposes, but I feel a need to reply. I very much respect what you are saying here, but I think that Headbomb was actually right on the merits of the argument, and you are asking him to say that he was wrong when he wasn't. Technically, he was wrong about it being the use of admin tools, but that's a technicality. On the larger picture, he had good reason to feel mistreated. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, no, I'm not suggesting he was wrong about the content at all - the consensus was with him, so by definition he was right. What was wrong was the repeated accusations of admin abuse and breach of WP:INVOLVED (continued to this very RFA!) when there were no admin actions taken by anyone in the dispute, and his uncivil outburst at AN and his refusal to address it and allay my fear of any repetition. It's all about convincing me he'll abide by WP:ADMINACCT, that he will be open to criticism if given a mop, and that he will back down in things he's wrong about - and I am not convinced. Anyway, I just wanted to explain myself a litte better than I had previously, so thanks for listening. Time for bed... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Boing! said Zebedee, on the refusal in Q4 to comment on any potential rooms for improvement in terms of civil discussion in a contentious situation, in addition to the observations I have made in separate sections below. I am getting the impression from Q3 that as long as one "stick to the issue" in a dispute, persistent aggressive and accusatory tone is perfectly acceptable, which in my opinion does not reflect well on collegial working style. I think in any content disputes, it's always better to not take other editors personally and move forward when necessary, and I am uncomfortable with the continued implication toward presumably SlimVirgin based on reading the recent AN/I discussion. Alex ShihTalk 12:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my thoughts in regards to Q3: The answer includes a red link to WP:AEE, as the page has been moved to User:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors. While I also disagree with having a group page like this, there is absolutely no need to vilify a group of longtime editors, many of them are still active today. Alex ShihTalk 12:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too be clear, my objections to the AEE starts and ends with the existence of the AEE (much like WP:ESPERANZA, which was before my time), as I'm entirely against dividing editors into classes of people with "special rights" during dispute resolution. I cast zero aspersions against any editors who would have been part of the AEE, had it been allowed to exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boing!sZ. WP:ADMINACCT is absolutely fundamental, and a failure to understand something as basic as discretionary sanctions- let alone getting into a lava over it- does not bode well, unfortunately. I do, of course, look forward to being proved wrong. — fortunavelut luna 12:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you see discretionary sanctions as basic. I certainly didn't understand them before becoming an admin. The real question to me is whether Headbomb expects to work in the DS area. If yes, I'd switch to oppose for obvious reasons. If no, do we really require intricate knowledge of one of the most dramatic areas on the site to become an admin? I'm actually somewhat encouraged when I see a candidate with no experience in that area. ~ Rob13Talk 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The whole philoSOPHIA thing was a case of HB being entirely too aggressive and staking out a position that wasn't well supported (not on the inclusion or not of the list but of the "admin abuse" complaint to ANI) and then when others tried to point out to him that the situation wasn't quite what he thought, he continued to hold to his original position. This sort of behavior isn't good in an admin. And this is only one example of his dig-in-and-don't-budge behavior. I'll also note that in the ANI over this issue, even after being told that their approach was disturbing to the other editor in the dispute, they continued the same approach (and in some ways, doubled down on the aggressive behavior). This is fine for an editor, but if you're going to be an admin, you're going to need to be a bit more willing to reconsider things or change your approach to get better results. I have no other issues with the candidate at the moment, so I consider this a slight oppose, but the demeanor issues concern me. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the concerns rasied by Boing! Every admin must act in a civil matter. KGirl(Wanna chat?) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boing's concern. We have enough abusive administrators as it is. Admins who can't control their temper are a serious issue. We absolutely don't need any more, and this user appears to be headed down that path based on his behavior in the June discussion and his handling of Q4. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The philoSOPHIA dispute is a big mess with bad behavior on both sides. Headbomb may have even been in the right, but the issue here is the way that Headbomb chose to respond to the situation. Being an administrator requires keeping a cool head and remaining courteous even when others around you are acting like imbeciles. If it was not for this behavioral issue, I would easily be able to support—as it is, this is too recent to ignore. Malinaccier (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per the issues raised in question 4. Even if you're in the right, "This is utter fucking horseshit" is not an appropriate thing to say, and Headbomb has shown severe incivility in that ANI thread. Their defensiveness continues in their response to question 4, where they push the blame onto other parties in their initial response, and later say "sure maybe I could have handled that with more tact" – that is not a proper apology or admission of guilt. This is such a recent event, and honestly I don't know whether someone with such a bad temper should be editing here at all, let alone given sysop tools. I think rudeness and bad tempers are one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia, and it drives away so many editors from the site, along with making lots of users who do stay feel like crap. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't really dismiss the last RfA bids when the behavior noted from them is still prevailing in their activity today. The issues raised in Q4 give me doubts whether this user will hold himself accountable, and we already have quite a few admins who fail to do this. So, no thank you but I appreciate your prolific content work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose becuase of how he handled Q4. Remember WP:BITE Wikipedias main problem. BobherryTalkEdits 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Boing!sZ, WP:ADMINACCT. The very recent behaviour shown by HB at [5] demonstrates that HB is temperamentally unsuited for adminship. Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 16:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the response to Q8 I have amended my !vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose". Neil S. Walker (t@lk) 22:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hold it against anyone that they don't understand/dare to touch the discretionary sanctions systems. However, it seems like Headbomb has some difficulty handling disagreements judging by Q4 and the attitude on the "is this admin abuse?" question aspect of the philoSOPHIA dispute (as expressed in the ARCA page and the ANI topic linked here), both in terms of staying calm and in terms of conceding arguments that you can't win. Either difficulty is a problem even in regular editors, and I worry that if it happens again after Headbomb becomes an admin it will result in an Arb case and accompanying "abusive admin" drama - such has happened many times in the past. I emphasize that I am only commenting on the attitude about the "is this admin abuse?" question and I don't find the problem to be insurmountable but it needs to be actioned on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Q4 and general incivility toward other users. Choard1895 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Boing!. I'm not satisfied after reading Q4 and the whole philoSOPHIA dispute. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per the reasons already given, ie Q4. It's nothing personal, surely, because I have a hard time keeping my tact sometimes as well. But Admins should be held to a higher standard. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as above - a step in the right direction from previous RFAs, but too many concerns still linger I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 17:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Boing!sz said above. Controlling temperament and remaining civil is essential for administrators. Hummerrocket(talk) 19:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boing!, Bilorv, and TheGracefulSlick. Dr.K. 19:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee, Alex Shih, Ealdgyth, et al. On the answers to Q4, consider the meta-issue that these are answers on an RfA, and yet there is apparently no self-awareness that he is responding in a way that digs a deeper hole. Relitigating the dispute takes precedence over demonstrating the demeanor expected of an admin. Per the nom, he is clearly a prolific editor, with many substantive, exceptionally high-quality contributions. Unfortunately I do not see the right temperament for an Admin. I know I'm taking the following quote out of its original context, but I suggest he should consider this fragment from his answer to Q3: "I'd rather keep my voice as an editor, than get involved as an admin." -- Gpc62 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hardly ever oppose RFAs - I think this may be the first time, actually - but Q4 kills it for me, for the many reasons outlined above. Yunshui雲水 21:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He is far too aggressive. I'm surprised to see this RfA so soon after the philoSOPHIA issue and that Headbomb continues to misinterpret it. He arrived at that article—about a small feminist philosophy journal—while using the term "special snowflake" in the AfD, [6] and reverted six times against three editors to remove the advisory board. [7][8][9][10][11][12] I considered reporting it to WP:AN/EW, but because it was Headbomb, I anticipated an explosion, so instead I gave him a DS alert, thinking (wrongly) that he wouldn't take that so personally. I even apologized for having to use the template. [13] That I felt I had to tip-toe around him and couldn't report the edit warring is the core of the problem. And the explosion happened anyway. It's also a concern that he still seems to believe that involved editors can't issue DS alerts (which are just that: alerts). SarahSV(talk) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SarahSV and the points she listed. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 22:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the response to Q8. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently necessary for me to expand. Being in a dispute on ANI a few months ago didn't bother me. The fact that, after that dispute, he didn't appear to understand how Discretionary Sanctions worked did. During this RfA, this has been a concern raised by multiple editors. Rather than learn the rules or give a brief, even-tempered response ("they allow ECP protection of pages and make it easier for admins to block users"), he proudly proclaimed his ignorance. I hoped he would give a response that would have allowed me to ignore Q4 entirely and support his candidacy, but that did not happen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having useful skills and using them actively and well does not automatically qualify one for the heavy responsibility of adminship. Temperament is at least 65% of the qualification in my opinion, and Headbomb, as useful and helpful as his contributions are, does not seem to have it. He also does not seem to want to develop it, given some of his statements in Q3, Q4, Q8 and this recent conversation on his talk page. That's fine, not all Wikipedians need to avoid bluntness and aggression and short-temperedness – but administrators do. Tools and skills can be learned, but temperament usually cannot be learned (unless one actively wants to embrace a new temperament). Temperament suitable to adminship needs to be demonstrated prior to becoming an admin. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boing! - Sure all admins lose their shit at times that's understandable but IMHO this editor has a serious civility, That aside Q4 and Q8 are not what I want to hear from an RFA candidate and as such is the final nail in the coffin for me. –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Headbomb does indeed provide very valuable contributions to the project - and works hard at it. I’ll just reiterate some words used in a previous RfA: your responses to editors regarding the MOSNUM dispute were rather abrupt and dismissive; bossy, rules-mongering; terse and cold; arrogant and brusque; very arrogant attitude - it seems to be a recurring theme. This very accurate oppose statement by Ched in RfA#3 sums the candidate up well, while beginning with: '...an excellent editor, and a tremendous asset to the project...' , and if I were here assessing an editor whose work I was not aware of, my vote would be almost identical, including, as I have also witnessed on other occasions, his tendentious disparaging remarks about Britain, which are not made in a forgivable humorous way. I can understand Sarah's comments, I've been avoiding Headbomb ever since the British issue some 7 or 8 years ago. I’m known for not mincing my words when the occasion demands, but there’s a difference between being pithy, and being brash - Headbomb's issues are probably due to spontaneity and a lack of diplomacy, but are character traits that are not conducive to adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I am frankly apalled by the answer to Q8, not only by the content, but also by the language used. I feel sorry for Ritchie333, who nominated in good faith but who has finally had to tell him to shut up. Ritch doesn't usually err with his RfA nominations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately, based on the answer to question 8, I am moving down here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based in part on Q4 (as mentioned above, so I won't rehash) and the overwhelming impression that they simply do not have the demeanor for the job. I would be afraid to put the tools in their hands, frankly. Not for the 99% of the time they would use it right, but for the 1% when they lose their cool. This doesn't diminish their contributions as an editor, which are many and appreciated. Being a good editor (and sometimes, advocate) isn't the same as being a useful admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've been back and forth on this RfA weighing all the comments and my own research of the candidate. Unfortunately, I just cannot support a candidate who would answer question #8 the way this candidate has. Add to that the very valid concerns presented above from Sarah, Ealdgyth and Boing! and I must oppose. -- Danetalk 01:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was going to wait a bit longer before commenting, but the answer to Question 8 brings me to a quick oppose. The candidate doesn't appear to have taken the question seriously, and WP:ACDS/WP:AE is serious stuff. I can excuse someone who's not interested in working in this area (And honestly, I'm not interested in working in this area either); I can't excuse "rain down holy fire" and "without remorse", even if it was intended as a joke. No... Not appropriate for RFA as much as it is inappropriate at a funeral. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that ACDS/AE is "serious stuff", I dispute the premise that I should spent 2-4 hours reading walls of text that will have no relevance to my adminship, should I get the bit. I was ask of that my perception of what ACDS/AE is, and that's what my experience with these processes have been. If that's not what they are, so what? The consequences of me being wrong about what ACDS is vs what actually is, assuming DS are something other than the highest possible "don't do it, or else" of Wikipedia, is about the same as Admin #234 not knowing the intricacies of WP:COSMETICBOT when all they want to do is deal with new page patrols. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but Q4 is a deal breaker for me. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is not a candidate who will bring any form of positivity to the table. Between incivility and a failure to accept negative comments, giving the tools would be a detriment to wiki.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 02:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I am one who can appreciate his work as a BAG, the answers to questions 4 and 8 caused a verbal "yikes" response from me. Not good. Nihlus 04:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Editor has lots of WP:CLUE and has contributed mightily at this project. However, not every great editor should be an admin. (And not every good admin is a great editor, for what that's worth, although the correlation is high.) I sense that most the time they'd be a great admin, but it does appear that they may be "easily baited" as pointed out in the support section, and not just on a one-time basis. Not so much that it interferes with regular editing, but being an admin puts one in situations more often that result in conflict. I'm truly, very sorry to land here because of my respect for the candidate. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose question 8 is horrifying. --Rschen7754 05:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not seeing the right attitude here for Adminship. Civility is a must, and I have concerns that this user won't be able to keep a cool head and will become that which he despises most (a rogue admin). A great editor, but not everyone is cut out to be an admin I think (no offence meant). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I didn't want to see myself in this section, but following Q8, I really can't support (see my support !vote for more info). Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to oppose a well established useful editor, but admins need more tact and civility. Q4 is about matters too recent to hope they'd not recur. ϢereSpielChequers 06:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see a lot of good stuff and some not so good stuff. Unfortunately I end up in the oppose column. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - answer to Q8 really concerns me, and the interaction with BSZ definitely shows Headbomb's true colours. I'd be seriously uncomfortable with him becoming an administrator. Patient Zerotalk 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I really wanted to support because we need more admins that are willing to call out groupthink and take unpopular stances when required. But the philoSOPHIA thing is a dealbreaker for me. The problem is not so much the position that was taken, as much as it is the extremely aggressive way that the argument was prosecuted. I don't want to see admins taking that sort of position, sorry. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - frankly, this project doesn't need men in positions of authority who think they can dictate that a dispute with identified women editors on an article about a feminist journal is not a gender issue. Headbomb's attitude in the philoSOPHIA thing is borderline abusive, and his unironic complaint of "abuse of power" is stunningly clueless. I'm not really satisfied with the answer to my Q7, it's fair but wishy-washy ("let someone else deal with it"). Answer to Q8 is a horror show. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You, uh, should have started from your third sentence. Ivanvector, the dispute was over identifying the members of a board contrary to the essay of WP:JWG. I don't think the word gender was ever even mentioned at the article talk. If you're going to point to an issue, it ought to be the edit-warring at the article and attitude at AN/I. And, if you missed it, all involved parties tried to impose their preferences on the article. This would mean that everybody was dictating the dispute. Nobody had clean hands there. Additionally, philoSOPHIA's board consists of both males (one to be precise) and females. To reframe this from a different perspect: it's like a Jewish admin and a German editor having a dispute over some article content on The Daily Stormer (for example). You don't immediately assume that the German editor is a holocaust denying anti-semite. Especially if the dispute has nothing to do with Jews, Germans, or Anti-semitism. That shows incredible ABF. This, specifically this, is why I opposed your candidacy for adminship. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - I... I've never been a cheerleader for the convoluted bureaucracy that ArbCom is want to be... or the unabashed time sink that places like ANI are want to be... or confusing foul language itself with outright incivility... And if some answers here had been made in passing on the user's talk page, they wouldn't concern me nearly as much... But... there's a difference between saying something around the water cooler and saying something at the board meeting. The decision to take the approach here that's been taken, that this is the time to be a maverick, involves... just... stunningly bad judgement. If this is not the, then it is certainly one of the most high profile places on the project, and when I have to be quite this deliberate in the way I word my response, it inspires zero confidence that exactly that public lack of judgement would not quickly materialize into exactly 1) users confusing foul language itself for outright incivility, 2) time wasting threads at places like ANI, and 3) a quick trip to the convoluted bureaucracy of ArbCom. Overall, it shows a lack of seriousness, and a lack of respect for the fact that simply by virtue of existing, this discussion burns man-hours in real time. I would strongly suggest that, at this point, the decision to withdraw should be seriously considered for precisely that reason. GMGtalk 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The conduct at this ANI discussion tells me they do not have the mindset to be an administrator. Also answering "I'm not interested in dealing with WP:AE stuff and discretionary sanctions" as to a question how to handle issues regarding DS as an admin only furthers this mindset. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reading through the candidate's responses to the questions (particularly Q$ and Q8) it appears he is being deliberately provocative or doesn't really care whether this RfA passes or not. I fear he is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin and would create a great deal of drama, judging by the philoSOPHIA thread on ANI.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Q4, Q8 answers, Sarah, and Boing. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--I do not expect that every admin must be knowledgable, (let alone proficient) about DS as long as you are not into it.I have never seen Sandstein et al at BOTS But the problem is not with the position that you took, but the extremely aggressive and insulting way via which you laid the argument.While, I tend to feel for you about PHILOSOPHIA matter (and thus partially dis-agree with Ivanvector,) that could have been addressed with much more civility and without landing at doors of ADMINABUSE.Your comments at Q4, still-justifying his over-the-top behaviour, further undermines my confidence.An admin-candidate must be considerably non-baitable and shall have the demeanor to work in a more-or-less drama-free manner irrespective of your environment.You are un-doubtably one of the greatest assets of WP but regretably, that doesn't seem to resonate with adminship.Also, as Boeing commented, this RFA wass probably a last-chance-one and ought to have been tended better.Somehow, your attitude, which may be brutally honest(??), tends to give me the impression that you really do not care about this RFA.And also, on a diff.note, when your nominator, who is one of the most respected editors in the RFA circle, is asking you to withdraw, you are definitely not compelled to oblige but just asking him to withdraw his support on the basis that you don't understand the problems raised by numerous people over here, points to how-difficult it would be to convince you that you were wrong about certain actions/statements(or blocks etc. , if you have the mop) et al.Rigidity is a good trait but not too much of it.Sometimes, you really need to fall back and listen.And, it's sad to see the ever-widening contrast between the 2 concurrent nominations--both proposed by Ritchie333, which initially started on nearly parallel lines.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral Some good reasons why, some good reasons why not. I won't be too bothered if this passes. I don't think either side of that AN debate acted in a particularly optimal fashion, but I can't ignore the fact that concerns about the user's temperament were brought up in 2009 in the last RfA and those still seem to be current. On the other hand, the user has an awful lot of experience and does good work, and would probably help Wikipedia a lot if he became an admin, which is something so easily overlooked when someone unearths a piece of drama, and we really need more admins at the moment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is no doubt that this is one of the top contributors with excellent record in not only in content creation, but in a variety of different fields. I would like to point out that answer to question #3 is less than satisfactory in my opinion. Instead of making a general and rather polemical statement (which is putting me off), I am hoping to see at least one example that demonstrate the skills required in dispute resolution. Alex ShihTalk 08:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also switching to Oppose after seeing the response to Q4. Alex ShihTalk 11:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, possibly temporarily. When I first saw this, I thought it was going to be a walkover support. But I'm genuinely, and quite seriously, concerned by the level of aggression shown at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article, which is very recent - the approach shown there is absolutely contrary to admin status. I'm going to have to think harder about this before I possibly switch to Support or Oppose (and I'll probably ask I have asked a question of the candidate and will await the answer), but I thought it best to air my concerns right away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. A few admins (very experienced and those whom I actually respect) claim an article about a journal to be under discretionary sanctions, and tag a few other respected editors including Headbomb on their talk pages, informing (rather, warning) them of the implications thereon. The preceding argument is about the admins wishing inclusion of the advisory board of the journal within the article and the other tagged editors opposing the same, on the grounds of the same being promotional. Apparently, the article was not under discretionary sanctions, and the Rfc on inclusion of the advisory board concluded that such inclusion without reliable sources would not be following consensus. I can understand what an editor who contributes considerably to articles across the project can feel, when he is slapped with a discretionary sanctions notice for an article that is not under DS, and for an issue where the editor is absolutely right. I would feel as frustrated as Headbomb if I were placed in a similar position. Lourdes 10:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But is edit warring and making such an aggressive show at ANI the right response for an admin candidate? I'd certainly understand it if you'd get frustrated too, Lourdes, but I think it is extremly unlikely you would respond the same way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that most of the protection requests that Headbomb has made are related to content disputes he is in. One example of this (May 2017) is Isaac Newton in popular culture. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't tend to look for drama (I avoid ANI like the plague when I can), so most of my RFPPs involve disputes I'm involved in. I don't plan on that changing, in the sense that any dispute I'm involved in would still go through RFPP. But I often come across revert wars that I figure others will handle eventually, because I can't really go through the hassle of making an RPFF request. For a recent dispute, I'd have protected Lorenz gauge condition w.r.t. to Talk:Lorenz gauge condition#Lorentz invariance. Twinkle makes that much easier now (I've installed it 6-7 months ago), but haven't come across much that needed reporting. Academic journals/physics is rather uncontroversial on most days. As for my alleged violation of 3RR on the Betacommand RFC, I can't say I see the violation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, my mistake. Regardless, it shows how you still have a combative demeanor at times, a concern which seems to have been present in previous RfAs. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, for exceptionally experienced editors to end up at a rhetorical position of You're a GENDER reverting a GENDER. is pretty reminiscent of probably several thousand past instances of You're a CITIZEN OF COUNTRY WITH A HISTORY OF ETHNIC CONFLICT reverting a CITIZEN OF COUNTRY WITH A HISTORY OF ETHNIC CONFLICT. Arguments like that are rarely if ever constructive. GMGtalk 11:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Although I can't oppose because of the fact that the candidate seems to understand Wikipedia policy pretty well and I don't think they would block Jimbo, but the behavioural issues make me wary to support. The reason why these would possibly have an effect on how good of an admin one would be is because they show that the candidate doesn't really listen too well to advice. Because this could result in them doing something against consensus, I cannot support. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this is the first time I've ended up here. There are many good reasons to support Headbomb and it is always a joy to see his name in my watchlist. Yet, on reading his answers to Q4 and Q8, and the opposes above, I must admit that I am swayed – not enough to oppose, but enough to ensure that I cannot support this nomination in good conscience. I would support a 5th nomination if he improves on the areas highlighted, especially his tendency towards combative behaviour. The circumstances involved explain his behaviour but do not excuse it, at least in my opinion. Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Headbomb performs a lot of valuable work on the project, but I am concerned by some of the issues raised by opposers. I would definitely support a future run, though. -FASTILY 06:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Just some thoughts after reading previous RfA requests. I don't think it's ever an issue having many failed nominations, but I do think it's important to address why these nominations failed, and whether or not the key issues raised by the community have been addressed, rather than to dismiss them as usual pitfalls. Having read a recent AN/I report started by the editor back in June 2017, I am afraid some of the past concerns may still be very present. Alex ShihTalk 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful information, Alex, and I find it helpful you brought it to our attention. Based on my initial reading, this discussion linked is not a disqualifier, but it does say something about the candidate's ability to distinguish between notices and active sanctions, the definition and rules for WP:INVOLVED, and proper tone for civil discussion when parties disagree. BusterD (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to elaborate a little on my !vote, re his comments in the ANI I think this nominee is correct in being sensitive to admins possibly overstepping their bounds and behaving in a manner that is not warranted. But first, I feel that he had no reason for reaching that conclusion based on my reading of the ANI. Secondly, this would have been a good opportunity for him/her to clear the air concerning their foul language but they failed to adequately do so. The answers to Q4 concern me. Until we figure out a better way of dealing with abusive and uncivil admins---a serious problem, as far as I'm concerned----admin candidates deserve and will get close scrutiny concerning their temperament. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the ANI thread might mean there might need to be a Headbomb 5 some other time. Because this has clearly caused controversy here. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there will be a Headbomb5. If there is, and if I'm still around, the next time round I will be one of the first to oppose. One of my criteria (not used as a rationale here) is: I will no longer support a 4th (or more) attempt at adminship, nor will I support a disclosed WP:RTV that was the result of Arbcom sanctions or a community ban of any kind. I made a grave error of judgement by supporting this 5th RfA, desyoped August 13, 2013 For cause. Incidentally, that particular desysop probably wouldn't have caused a ripple, but the news was Tweeted during Gardner's valedictory at a packed Wikimania lecture theatre, in which she was thanking him for his work. The ripples of supressed comment were audible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree. If a candidate's aggressive temperament has not softened in the eight years between RFA3 and RFA4, then it's never going unlikely ever to change. I see this RFA as a last-chance one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]