Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 3

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

Headbomb

Final (70/36/10); Ended Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:09:10 (UTC)

Nomination

Since people seem to be getting the wrong idea about why exactly I want the tools and what kind of an admin I would be, here's an updated statement. It will be very redundant with Q1 and Q2, so please excuse this, but some people think it would be best that I make such a statement. Also, as this RfA evolved, I have a few clarifications to make, so I will take the opportunity to make them here. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Who I am: I am Headbomb. Take a look at my user page to see the IRL info, and some infoboxes and barnstars. Off-wiki I am a master's student of physics. I was involved in the organizing of several charities, student activities, and student politics as the Treasurer (aka finance and legal stuff) of Université de Moncton's Science Student Association. On-wiki I coordinate several and varied projects, some small, some big, and some which impacts multiple WikiProjects (and thus have several needs and opinions to take into considerations when trying to find the "sweet spot" that will maximize the level of satisfaction of people). I have yet to receive a complain about anything I've done at these projects, and I don't intend to give people something to complain about anytime soon.

Desired adminship style: I am a firm believer than anyone enthrusted with any hint of responsibility, whether on or off wiki, should be willing to discuss things with his opposition and review his own actions. This is not a sign of arrogance, but rather a concern for consensus-building. I am not perfect of course, but no one is either. While most of the work I would do is completely uncontroverial (technical deletions, spam deletion, edit protected requests), I'm more than willing to undo any administrator action upon a simple (but reasoned) request by any user in good standing (aka anyone excluding troll, spammers, ...). This should not happen very often, considering that none of my speedies were ever declined in the last few months (with the exception of a speedy renaming of something like "Non-Newtonian fluids" which I thought was "Non-newtonian fluids" in correct English grammar.) RfAers are invited to go over my speedy-log (if such a thing is availible), and the rest of my logs (which are squeaky clean even after 1.5 years and 30,000+ edits, not even 3RR).

In the same line of thought, I'm completely willing to forgo the tools upon a simple RfC which concludes that I've abused them, or used them to enforce my own opinion rather than that of the community. But such an RfC won't happen since I hate wikidrama; it kepts me from doing the things I really want: coordinating the WikiProjects Physics and its five taskforces, maintaining the journal datadump, making sure the Article Alerts run smoothly and are correctly implemented on projects, and maintaining and improving templates. Me getting the tools would make the handling of these projects much more efficient and would reduce the load on the other admins. And as a bonus, I would bring my knowledge and experience of template coding to protected pages, as I know from first-hand experience that there is often a significant backlog of severals days.

Request by the candidate

If you have any question, any questions at all, don't be shy but please make them as direct and clear as possible. If you give me a general/hypothetical situation, I can only give you a general/hypothetical answer, and I am very reluctant to commit on situations that are not well-defined.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Looking at doing some deletion work. Mostly WP:CSD G6 (technical deletions), WP:CSD G11 (obvious spam), WP:CSD G12 (copyrighted copypasta), and WP:CSD R3 (unlikely redirects). Most of these would be done in the context of maintaining the bot dump of journals cited on wikipedia, and in the patrolling of newly created article of potential interest to WikiProject Physics (where the ability to compare re-created page with their deleted version would come in handy). Anything remotely controversial would be sent to WP:AfD (I hate WP:PROD) to garner feedback. I would also keep an eye on {{editprotected}} for template edits and whatnot, since I'm good with them. I'm completely uninterested in doing blocks and bans work (whatever the difference is), vandal fighting, and anything that otherwise tends to attract drama. I'm one of those who think all admins should be open to recall, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be. Likewise, I would interpret any administrative action I would make as being no different than a regular edit and not "set in stone" by regal decree. I would have no problem in undoing an action (move, deletion) upon a simple request by any regular editor in good standing (aka not socks, trolls, spammers, and so on)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Well editing-wise, I brought List of baryons (mostly alone) and Quark (with several other editors) to featured status. I also do a lot of copy-editing, article assessment, article tagging, and so on. On the meta, I managed/coordinate WikiProject Physics and its taskforces. I also have lots of idea that seem to make pretty big impacts, even if others do the hefty work (aka bot-coding and bot-tweaking) as I lack the technical skills. Some of these ideas would include the Article Alerts notification system (where I do "customer support" type of work), generating dumps of |journal= parameters gather from citation templates, and several other bot-requests. I'm also involved at the content noticeboard and at the Manual of Style and many of its subpages. I'm also a rollbacker and an autoreviewer, and I got WP:AWB rights.

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: Yeah, but nothing really notable IMO (others may disagree however). The few conflicts I'm involved in are mostly those of differing opinions, and I'm more than capable of handling not getting my way (even though I may not like it, see this for example). In the rare times I deal with unreasonable people, I'm usually curt and remind people to focus on content rather than personal differences (see Talk:Yang–Mills theory#Marco Frasca and onwards for example). If that fails, I usually walk away and do something better with my time, or hail someone at WP:ANI or WP:3O.

Additional optional questions from SparksBoy

4. You have had two other RfA requests, however this question is referring to the first one. What have you worked on? What have you changed? How have you improved? and why should I support you this time?

A: Well the first one seems to have failed mostly because of lack of experience. It's been a year since. I didn't work on anything in particular, but over the last year or so I've become involved in wider-reaching projects such as the aforementioned Article Alerts, and worked with many bot-coders to ensure that systematic uncontroversial work could be done. The physics new article list got me involved in pretty much all kinds of deletion discussion and speedies that one would associate with newly created article. Vanispamcruft, bad articles, nonsense, content forks, and so on. Sometimes I nominate articles for deletion to generate discussion while myself being neutral (for example if I believe that an article deserves more scrutiny than through PROD, while not particularly caring whether or not it survives). So I guess my answer to "how have you improved" is that I got more experience over the last year. And as for your support, my adminship would simply reduce the load on other admins and improve response time at {{editprotected}}, and make my life easier when managing the physics project, the journal dump, and the article alerts. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Shawn in Montreal

5. Hi. I realize that this your third go-round and is becoming a bit old-hat, I imagine, but what would you like editors to take from your self-nomination rationale, or lack of?

A: I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by my self-nom rationale, but if by that you mean the reasons why I self-nommed, I self-nommed because I think Wikipedia would be better off with me as an admin than me not being an admin. In a nutshell, I'm pretty sure I have my head screwed-on, and I'm commited to improving the encyclopedia. Everytime I requested adminship (this one included) was to remove annoying barriers between me and improving the encyclopedia (such as waiting for a redirect to be created so a page can be moved), and to save other admins the trouble of making deletions such as Science. or Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a, or a bot-created subpage which was the result of a bad use of {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}}, or making non-controversial improvements to a template (you can wait several days before an admin gets around to handle your {{editprotected}} request). I mentionned before that I viewed this more as a "power-editor" role, which is still sorta true, but at the time I didn't plan on being involved in anything other than technical deletions, so now there's definetaly a bit more than simply being a "power-editor". Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow up Question Do you think it better to delete Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a or to make a redirect to the correct name?DGG (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well actually it used to be a redirect to the correct name, and I sent it to speedy since that's an bad way of writing the abbreviation (the correct ones are Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., ...). Whenever Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a is seen on wikipedia (which is about 75 times, but I've been cleaning up the citation templates with the bad entries so its lower than that now), it should be a redlink to indicate the bad way of spelling it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Plutonium27

6. Is there any particular reason why you chose not to write a nomination statement here? What pertinent information or impression are we to obtain from being directed to a blog?

A: There's no statement simply because I don't have anything to say that wasn't redundant with the questions. These things get lengthy enough without people repeating themselves. As for the link, I think it's funny to have self-nomnomnom, especially compared to the boring and drab "self-nom". The link is given for those who might not be familiar with the "nomnomnom" meme.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

7. Please cite an example of an edit you've made to a policy or guideline. If you've made no such edits, please tell us about an edit you'd like to make.

A: I don't think I ever made any (could be wrong, at the least I don't recall making any) nor ever felt the need to make any. Sorry.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

7a: Would you say Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are perfect? Please be expansive; the purpose of the question is to draw out some of your thoughts about, and interpretations of, the rules you're signing up to enforce.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to give you an answer that would satisfy you if I disagreed with some of the policies. I won't say they're perfect, because there's no such thing as a perfect set of policies, but they're good enough to the extent that I don't ever recall having a problem with any of them.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My answers to 8 and 8a might be relevant to you.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

8. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: Well personally I think WP:N is interpreted way too much as "if it shows up on google" or "someone reviewed it" for commercial products and this leads to a lot of WP:UNDUE. For instance, there are a plethora of articles on every individual cell phone made by Nokia (165), Motorola (65), Sony Ericsson (81) and the list goes on. I find this to be completely ridiculous (I could've picked any other "gadgety categories", such as MP3 players, PDAs, ...). IMO, these articles should be merged by series, with each individual phone getting a section.

On the other hand, things that are completely notable, but not covered by traditional sources due to their nature, such as IRC stats tracking programs, or academic research software, which are given the shaft because they aren't found anywhere in books, print media, or news websites. You have to look at these things from the community that uses them's perspective. IRC people don't give a rats' ass about getting media coverage, and they find IRC logs, personal websites, and internal project wikis to be perfectably acceptable ways to record things for posterity. So something which makes an impact on IRC will very rarely get mentioned in traditional media, since traditional media is IRC-illiterate and those who don't know about IRC don't care about IRC.

The same situation happens with notable research softwares. You have international collaborations who are more interested in getting things done than getting an article about how they've written a clasdistic tree builder used by half the people working in cladistics, and those working in cladidistics care more about building cladistic trees than going on CNN to hail the merits of the software they use. Not having coverage in traditional media doesn't mean you aren't notable (even though a lot of the time, the two go hand in hand). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

8a. I tend to agree with you that some real world notable topics fail WP:N. The potential problem here is that there is no way to write an article about say the "cladistics software" type stuff without resorting to original research. How would you suggest resolving this conflict.

A: Well you can use primary sources and a good load of judgment. It's not very hard to distinguish facts from promotional/unreliable stuff. Plus if you are involved with the project, you can write a whole lot about history going from memory alone, and support it with something (such as statements from mailing lists, internal reports, etc...). I mean no one would expect these article to ever become featured, but they certainly have their place on Wikipedia IMO if whoever wrote the article knows what s/he's talking about, remained neutral, and made the best use of the available ressources. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

9. In Q1 you stated that you "hate PROD". I am curious to learn why that is.

A: Basically (without going into something too beany), the main problems I have with PROD is that it can be (and is) used to delete articles without the community noticing. This results in the deletion of many articles that should/would never be deleted normaly, that could easily be rescued or merged into other articles. Now since the ArticleAlerts were implemented (PRODs were a major factor in me coming up with the idea), active WikiProjects who tag their articles can easily monitor the PRODs, but there's always a chance that one slips by, especially considering that PROD-prone material is often not monitored by WikiProjects. This is especially a grave concern when it comes to old and low-traffic articles; there are good chances that their creator are now inactive, and that no active users watch the page. So what you have is essentially a reviewpoor or reviewless process that can results in a deletion when it would've been kept, rescued, merged, or redirected if it went to AfD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

9a. I can say from first hand experience that some notable topics are deleted via PROD. However, on any given day the number of expiring PRODs that are blatantly non-notable is ~50-60, the number that are notable is ~5, and the number that are debatable is ~10. (With say 20-30 being dePRODed before day 7.) Additionally, the notable topics are using in very bad shape, just barely notable, or both. A perfectly legitimate article in good shape making it to day 7 is rare (1-2 a week), but it does happen. Now given all that, do you feel it is worth burdening AfD with an extra 80-100 articles a day to save the ~10-15 that might be deleted via PROD? What ratio of non-notable:notable would you consider the minimum necessary to justify PROD's existence - or are you merely philosophically opposed to it regardless?

A: My opposition is more philosophical in nature. But going by your numbers, is it worth it to burden AfD ~80 more articles per day to give ~15 articles (~20% of PRODs) the debate they deserve? I would argue that yes. Perhaps if it was more comparable to 1% it wouldn't be so bad, but ~1 in 5 is abhorantly high IMO. I did not know it was that bad.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't actually get deleted, since I patrol every expiring prod, but yes ~5 a day are keeps, IMO, with 5-10 redirects or merges. At least 80% of the ones I deproded that were taken to AfD ended in keep. Admittedly though very few have any references and most are badly written so I can see why some might think they should go.

Comment Additionally, a few people patrol them long before they expire, and remove those for which there is no adequate deletion rationale, or which appear clearly suitable, or mergeable, and send to AfD those that clearly belong at AfD. I would estimate I remove or move about 4 or 5 of each day's batch that way myself, & others do more than that, so there are actually multiple layers of checks. DGG (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Some people are uneasy with my position on PRODs. I don't really see why how I feel on them is relevant Adminship or what there is to be uneasy about. I mean I don't like them and wouldn't PROD things myself for the reasons stated above, but that's about it. I'm not running a crusade against PRODers and PRODs in general or anything like that, and I've even endorsed some. I'm just saying that I think AfD is a better process which is less likely to result in the deletion of salvageable material. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

10. In Q1 you stated that you intend to use the new tools mainly for uncontroversial gnomish type work. I believe you, but over time things change. Let's say you get involved in new page patrol at some point in the future. What steps would you take before you started speedy deleting new pages on a regular basis (or got involved in any other admin-related area you have limited experience in).

A: Well I did say I would speedy spam and copyvios, but I'm already familiar with that since I sorta do new page patrol (I limit myself to the physics results from User:AlexNewArtBot since these are already plenty to patrol, verify for spam, tags with wikiprojects banners, copyedit the real bad ones, format references, add npov/tone banners, tag as a merge candidate, or send to XfD, and so on). I don't recall one of my speedy tags being removed in the last several months.

However, the point of your question is how would I go about gaining knowledge about X if I'm not familiar with it, and the answer is I would check the available admin-ressources on X (admin guide, admin cheetsheet, etc...) on top of the guidance page for non-admins and go from there. When would be unsure of myself, I would simply go as X's talk page and ask for guidance, or ask another admin about how one should deal with X. I usually make liberal use of my sandboxes so I'd try the tools on those page first to make sure I don't mess something up (such as history merges, restoring revisions, ...). If I somehow felt compelled to deal with vandals or 3RR type of things (although I can't fathom why I would want to, way too much drama for my liking), I'd create a dummy account and practice on them first.

So in a nutshell, I'd check what the policies & guidelines on the topics are, what the admin-resources say about it, practice on dummy pages/accounts, and if I still felt unclear or unsure about something after all that, I'd check with other admins.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

11. What does WP:IAR mean to you? How would you apply it? Noloop (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A. It simply means ignore the Wikipedia bureaucracy when it clashes with sound judgment and gets in the way of improving it. For example, Rebuilding ac and dc motors was recently prodded. There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that it would not have been deleted (even if someone deprodded it, AfD would have killed it), and there was nothing mergable from the article. So I thought "why wait until the PROD is over", and got an admin to delete the page.

Other examples of a good use of IAR is when the guidelines are ill-adapted for the situation at hand, or that sound judgments warrants a deviation from them. For example 3RR says don't 3RR. However if you look at things, you can see that often a discussion happens in the edit summaries rather than the talk page and real progress is being made through reverts+reword (my summary:how about this wording), then revert+reword (your summary:Still problematic, implies that X know when X is unconfirmed, how about this). I've had several collaborations with other people in this manner and everyone walked away happy at the end of the day, even if a litteral interpretation of 3RR would've gotten both of us blocked. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

12. What does your scary username mean? — Sebastian 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A Nothing really. I needed a name for a savegame on Perfect Dark back in the late 1990s and I came up with Headbomb_V (V as in vee and not five) and I thought it sounded cool. It just sorta stuck since then, but I usually drop the V. I don't recall my username having any special significance over time. It could just as easily have been HorsePizza or NuclearMongoose_X. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

13. Can you provide examples for solving conflicts and treating people (especially newbies) respectfully? (See my statement below for context of this question.) — Sebastian 04:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A Well it's very hard to link particular examples of collaborations with newbies or non-scientists since the crux of my edits are done on science articles, and the collaboration usually span several months. For example, Afluegel, logger9, and other editors at the Glass Taskforce wanted to set up a taskforce for articles related on glass. Many of these editors were newcomers to Wikipedia at the time, who were not all that familiar with the Wikijungle. The history of the project is essentially detailed on the taskforce's talk page (it's not too long, there's not even archives yet). I guided them around since I had experience in creating taskforces, even though I myself do not know much about glass and related topics.

We first identified categories that should be bot-tagged, and got a bot to run on them for them. Then I gave them tips for recruiting members, and we set a "assessement worksheet" so they could assess articles without losing their mind or stepping over each other's toes. After that I set up the articles alerts and the "list of potential new articles" (I asked them to build lists of keywords, and implemented and tweaked them until they gave reasonable outputs). We had several discussion on various user talk pages about guidance and so on and now the Glass Taskforce essential runs itself, and I answer questions and offer guidance when I see someone needs it. For example, when logger9 did not know what to do when someone deleted his article). I routinely drop by to ensure that things are running smoothly. Things like this are not uncommon for me (although you'll forgive me if I don't detail all of them, since this is fairly long to write). You can look at two complex bot requests I made which turned to be extremely fruitful and appreciated by all, here and here, for examples of contributions with non-scientists.

For short term newbie guidance, it's much more harder to get. Those I tried to help were single-time editors (or something very close to that), and they rarely replied. I've spent about 45 minutes and I can't find a single one who replied, other perhaps than Oakwood. I've helped plenty of people plenty of times, but it's rather trivial things such as "BTW, here's a tip" or "I wonder about your edit here, why did you make it" (see this for example).

Update: As luck would have it, a new user did not understand why his article was nominated for deletion. You can see the whole thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC-92AD.

For an example of conflict resolution (See this for the core of my actions, although you may wish to start here to get the full background). I recognize I ended up being curt, but the situation warranted it. I am afraid the debate is very technical in nature, so I'll summarize. And editor (Pra1998) pushed what is in all likelihood his own work (M. Frasca) and someone claims this is not mainstream science, but rather fringe. In the meantime, (I was originally siding with Pra1998, as the opposition did not explained why the content was problematic), I've asked those against Pra1998 to explain why the content was inappropriate, as there were a reference given. They explained that the sources given did not support the passage in question, and that the others were not mainstream and explained why. Since I could not understand the arguments as to why this was fringe, I asked Pra1998 to provide a better source, such as a review citing the work of M. Frasca favourably, but he failed to provide them. The disputed section got removed from the article, and that was essentially that. At several times the debated turned into NPAs and I had to steer it back on track, but at the end of it, things turned out as they should.

Is there anything else you would like to know, or feel I could adress more? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a great reply, and it rightfully earned you a support vote. As for me, however, I still have concerns as per my e-mail. — Sebastian 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Plastikspork

14. When is it appropriate canvassing to ask members of a particular WikiProject to !vote at an AFD which you have nominated (or RFA in which you are the candidate)? In cases in which it is inappropriate, is it also inappropriate to ask someone else to do it for you?

A.As far as I'm concerned, it should be near-mandatory. In theory it sounds like a good way to get a bunch of non-neutral editors chipping in, but in practice you'll almost get the best feedback possible. They would know it the candidate had an attitude problem, kept editing against policy, or if comments of other RfAers are grounded in reality or are based on statements taken out of context. I completely disagree with the notion that the members of a WikiProject are so partisan that they would let an affiliation as loose as mere co-membership get in the way of their judgment. Having worked with several Wikiprojects for over a year, I have never met anyone who would judge anyone on the basis of anything other than their contributions to Wikipedia and their interactions with other editors. RfAs would gain much from the comments of those who work the most closely with the candidates. If "canvassing" was made near-mandatory, the question would not be "Why have you noticed the members of your project? Can't you win on your own" but rather "Why haven't you told the members of your project? Do you have something to hide?" Co-members are the people who have the most to gain from getting one of their own as an admin, true. But they are also those who have the most to lose if the candidate is unfit for adminship. Innapropriate canvassing, such as the candidate posting a bunch of "Running for RfA, support me!" on several projects, or such as notifying only the three editors that agree with you out of dozens project members, will be so patently obvious that the resulting backlash would unimaginably hostile.

Concerning asking someone else to canvass for you, I really don't like the "secretive" feel of it, but I can imagine multiple situations where the intentions behing asking someone else to canvass for you are non-problematic. For example you could ask an uninvolved editor to notify a WikiProject for you so to make sure that the notice is not influenced by your own viewpoint. But I can also imagine less noble intentions (cabal-like behaviour disguised as independent actions). If you are referring to Crowsnest's notice on the Physics project, he approached me asking me if I was OK with him posting a notice so members could weigh in on my candidacy (probably because he also feels that they ought to be able to voice their concerns and grievances if they have any, or give their support if they look forward to me being an admin). I told him I was OK with it as long as he made sure the notice was neutral, and only if he thought it was in the benefit of the project rather than my own. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from myself, on behalf of my opposers

15. What about your bitey speedies and similar stuff?

A. Yes, I recognize I've been bitey in my speedies. I used {{db|Blah}} as messages to the deleting admins rather than messages to the community. I've fixed this behaviour when pointed out, and it's not a problem anymore. See for example my latest speedies "{{db|Unlikely redirect, abbrevations are Eur. J. Pharmacol. or Eur J Pharmacol, not a hybrid Eur J Pharmacol.}}" (see also this), compared to my previous "terse and cold" style for this kind of speedy {{db|Unlikely redirect}}. You can see in my first RfA that my promises are not empty words. I wasn't aware that one of my behaviours was problematic (in this case lack of edit summaries), and immediatly rectified it. My edit summary usage has been 100% ever since (minus perhaps a few dozen times in >20,000 or so edits where the software didn't remind my that I forget to include one). It would be nice if people assumed good faith here, especially considering my willingness to undo my admin actions upon a simple (but justified) request and openness to recall following a simple RfC which concludes I've made bad use of the tools. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Headbomb
• Requests for adminship/Headbomb 2
• Requests for adminship/Headbomb 3
• Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4

• Links for Headbomb: Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Headbomb can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on Talk Page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support good user. Trust them. And never come across anything which would lead me to oppose (will expand on my support should it look like things are going to other way :D)- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   Support I'd trust them with the tools. Alan16 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Alan16 (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. I didn't find anything that would lead me to question your judgment (e.g. incivility, misunderstanding of policy, etc.). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   After reading the opposes, I still support. Rereading through his talk page posts, it seems that he is merely honest, not brusque. Moreover, I'm trusting that hmwith had a pleasant conversation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

4. I recall that when I once asked a question about sourcing on the Content noticeboard, not only did you answer my question very helpfully, but you also went out of your way, unasked, to help copy edit the article that I had mentioned, pointing out grammatical flaws, inconsistencies, and the like. That kind of helpful attitude, in addition to your other collaborative work on the project, indicates to me that you will be a very helpful sysop. NW (Talk) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to NeutralSupport Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Support What exquisite timing. Keepscases (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   Timing?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I believe Keepscases is referring to your transclusion occuring at 3:33 EDT. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   No, it's a really long story, which has little to do with the candidate, but my recent contributions will shed some light on it for any who are curious. Keepscases (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   No, Keepscases is just excited because he is supporting a user who says he is an atheist. However this editor is not part of the Wikiproject so Keepscases has no issues with him. If he was part of the Wikiproject Atheism this !vote would be in the oppose section.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Bombs away! :) Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm toying with making "not a drama queen" my only RFA criterion, but in this case, there's a whole lot more to like here as well, so I can hold off for now. More admin candidates like this one, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW, I'm re-affirming my support after reading all of the oppose comments. At this point, I don't know if expanding on my support reasons or addressing the oppose reasons will do any good, but I'll try to briefly do both:

   • Doesn't spend time on ANI, spends time in mainspace and on Wikiproject:Physics.
   • Won't be a policeman-type admin, will be a janitor-type admin.
   • Direct, honest, and (contrary to what I think some of the opposes are implying) seems to take constructive criticism onboard better than most.
   • When I look at his contributions, I just don't see the rudeness and arrogance that some have mentioned. For such a popular oppose reason, there is a surprising lack of diffs backing it up. Perhaps "no nonsense", but I haven't seen anything bad, with the exception of a few of the speedy deletion rationales. He's indicated he understands this and will change, and from his history here, I believe we can take him at his word.
   • Unfortunately, all of us non-admins can't see his deleted contributions. All I can see below are three example of mislabeled noms of pages that should have been, and were, deleted. Just with different rationales. I don't know of any declined CSD noms. As I said right above, he seems to have reacted positively to feedback on this, and I don't see the benefit of waiting 3-6 months for him to "prove" it.
   • It is not RFA culture for the nominee to respond to everyone. That doesn't actually make much sense, but that's how it is, so if you want to oppose because he won't follow an odd social norm on a page he doesn't frequent, that's fine I guess. But I want to point out that if you look at his replies, he's been uniformly polite, provided more data for others to evaluate the oppose, and in a couple of places adjusted his behavior in response to the comments.

   Anyway, not sure if anybody's going to look back up here at the top anyway, so I'll shut up now. But I think we need more of this type of candidate, not less. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

9. Support. I know, like and trust this user. --John (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
10. A fine candidate; I'm not worried by the lack of a nomination statement either: Headbomb appears to have a sense of humor, and odd nomination statements make RfA more interesting. Acalamari 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Good user, who is terse. Triplestop x3 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Support—Very good candidate. Tony (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Support— I like his level-headed and no-nonsense approach. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Support— Helpful and level headed, as he said above it would be better for him to have the tools then for him not to. Jamesofur (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Support User has been around since May 2006 and has good contributions in Physics and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - not having the tired old guff that many RfAs have is, IMO, a good not bad thing. This suggests to me that the editor will be a common-sense admin. it'd be useful if opposers could provide diffs NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
17. The candidate has made some mistakes, but IMO that is outweighed by their devotion to Wikipedia and expert knowledge. There has always been a certain friction between the Wikipedian culture and scientific and technical cultures, and I favor adapting over rejecting, in general. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Opposes not convincing. Pmlineditor  Talk 13:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Meets my standards. Majorly talk 14:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Full support — Crowsnest (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Support has a need for the tools and will most likely put them to good use. Artichoker^[talk] 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I was just about to log off from Wikipedia, glad I checked RfA. This is one of the most emphatic Supports I'll ever make at RfAs. Surely the constant influx of anti-science, anti-rational nonsense has to be one of the top three problems of WP. Every scientist who devotes a chunk of his time to improving articles on science topics and keeping out nonsense should be welcomed with open arms. As a non-scientist myself, I can say from experience, having worked on articles with the candidate, that he shows no trace of arrogance or condescension towards non-scientists, does not take himself too seriously, yet is firm and courageous when it comes to standing up for high scientific standards and making sure that cranks and marginal figures do not use WP as a platform of self-promotion. I have full confidence that Headbomb will not abuse the tools in cases where the scientific community has not yet fully settled on a consensus. As a purely hypothetical example, we would not need to fear that he pushes string theory over loop quantum gravity. However, having him on the admin corps would mean that the people whose web sites are cataloged at Crank Dot Net will find their Wikilives suddenly getting more difficult, and that's a good thing.Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. I was worried by the opposes, but as far as I can tell, he's only "brusque" when dealing with cranks. That's a perfectly good time to be brusque, not to back off and let information and misinformation have an edit war. WP needs more of that. rspεεr (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
24. This looks to be a close RfA in the running. I've seen you around, and, since you seem capable, I'm willing to support. ceranthor 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Support I see nothing to suggest that what the opposition says is true. Good luck! America69 (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

25. Support I'm always a bit biased against self-noms, but everything from the support as per above, his responses to questions, and of course, the quality of his work to date, tips the scale definitely in his favor. Great work headbomb3! Tiggerjay (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Headbomb would make a fine admin, I'm sure. Over the months we've spent working together on the Quark article, Headbomb has repeatedly demonstrated a deep care for the encyclopedia's content, which I find an attractive quality in a prospective admin. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Well-articulated answers to the question; indicative of an intelligent potential administrator. —harej (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Yep, looks like a very competent and trustworthy admin candidate. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. Fine candidate, level headed and sensible. Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Support No problems here. Timmeh (review me) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Based purely on his history, which demonstrates competence. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
32. Support As an arrogant individual, I think I would know arrogance. I don't really see him as arrogant. There are other reasons, but yeah, I'm devoting this to what I see below. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Support, I see zero reason to oppose. Wizardman 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. I have no problems with the user being frank in giving responses to people or being a little sharp. A little bit of Arrogance doesn't bug me either as it shows me the editor has an opinion and isn't afraid to state it and back it up.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Not insane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Strong support great editor, knows a lot as demonstrated by his track record YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Great experienced editor, good luck ;) Aaroncrick (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Looks fine to me. Law _{type! snype?} 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
39. SupportYou look great, and unless you're hiding something, I see no reason to oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Not that I'm aware of :P.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

40. Support I've read the opposes, and looking through Headbomb's contribs I think they go a bit too far. Surely if he were that bad he would have lots of warnings, maybe even a few blocks by now, and all in all would not be doing any better as an editor than he would be as an administrator. So I am going to put myself in the support column this time. Best of luck, Headbomb. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
41. Support; yes, please. HiDrNick! 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Having reviewed the candidate's impressive body of work, there is no definite reason to oppose. I recognize the concerns of users who feel the candidate is overly harsh, however I believe an assumption of good faith is in order here. As a note however, perhaps the candidate could continue to be mindful of the importance of coming across in a cordial way. --Matheuler 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. The opposes haven't convinced me, and I see nothing else wrong. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. I do not find the oppose arguments convincing enough to support them. I also agree with the comments by Rspeer. I see no reason his bits shouldn't be twiddled. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
45. Support (moved from oppose) After having a one-on-one conversation with Headbomb, I see that he is very friendly and open to discussion. He wants confusion to be avoided, and I trust that he can deal with WP:Why was my page deleted?-type posts. hmwitht 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
46. support: Looks fine to me, and per various opposes. comments to be terse and cold - what more can you ask for? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Should be ok with the tasks mentioned in his response to Q1. Also, per William M. Connolley - terse and cold - what's not to like? PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Fine. BrianY (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Physicist, competent, and knows when to be serious - meets my criteria. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - Solid content work. AdjustShift (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. Consistently acts in a professional manner, working to improve Wikipedia (or at least the parts I've seen him edit). Will think before acting and respond in an appropriate manner when users start doing strange things to articles (the ones I've seen in WP:PHYS's domain, at least). Can be trusted with admin tools. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. I've been wavering on this, because some of the opposes seemed plausible, and some of the candidate's responses to the opposes seem thin-skinned. I hope that, if confirmed, Headbomb will think seriously about that. But, having said that, I found the answer to Q13 to reveal an editor who was very fair when challenged, and that pushes me into discounting the opposes. On close examination, I don't think that the opposes have convincingly made their cases so far. I also very much like what Goodmorningworld (support 22) said. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. First, almost all the other oppose voters are edit warriors on the politics pages, they clearly ave an agenda to keep good Admins out. But they are actually mistaken about Headbomb as he doesn't intent to get involved in the politics sector of wikipedia. The closing Admin here must discard all these oppose votes.
    
    As an editor of physics articles, I have had first hand experience with Headbomb. He would be an excellent Admin. He intends to mostly work on the "physics sector" of wikipedia, and any Admin who intends to do that must have a very good working knowledge of physics. E.g., in order to decide whether a dispute is "just another content dispute" or a case in which a "kook" is editing nonsense in an article, you need to know a lot about physics.
    
    Now, Headbomb can be trusted to recuse himself if there is even the slightest possiblility that his POV is a factor. But I think we do need to keep in mind here that physics and other science articles are different from politics articles. In case of politics articles, you either have clear vandalism or content (POV) disputes. In case of science articles there does exist something like "clear nonsense".
    
    Then just like an Admin who works on politics pages has to at least be able to see if an editor is vandalizing a page or if he is editing his POV (perhaps against the consensus), it is helpful if an Admin can see for himself if an editor is editing in "clear nonsense" in a physics article. It is not good enough for an Admin to always have to depend on the good judgement of others to be able to make that judgment.
    
    I know this sounds contrary to the neutrality an Admin has to have, but an Admin who cannot see that a physics article is crap, is similar to an Admin who has such poor mastery of the English language that he doesn't see that some article is being vandized. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
54. Support, seems sensible and trustworthy. No reason to think he'd abuse the tools. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - This was a difficult one, but in the end I decided to support. I will rationale this one through my criteria (KC = Key criteria, EC = Extra criteria). Your an established user (KC1) and I have no problem with your username (KC2) or user page (KC3), and no dodgy offline activities as far as I know (KC4). You have a personality which perhaps can be described as controversial, however you seem to be civil and use edit summaries effectively so that should be no issue for adminship (KC5). The speedy deletion concerns below were perhaps the biggest red flag to me, but the mistakes were not severe and you seem to learn from criticism (KC6). Your dispute resolution abilities seem to fine to me, I don't think higher level mediation skills are needed for adminship (KC7). You seem to respect (KC8) and follow policy (KC9) well enough. I also notice you already have some permissions and seem to have used these well (EC6). So in conclusion, you have my support. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Looks fine, seems smart, takes time, user will not make the wiki wheels fall off. Off2riorob (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
57. Support with caveats DGG's oppose gave me concern, but I have had good interactions with headbomb and we have as of the 2009 arbitration committee (hopefully) a more dynamic way to review admin behaviour. So Headbomb please be careful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. While I think this user may need to manage his temperament better, I still believe that he will be a good administrator. I interacted with him on several occasions in the past and it was good experience for me. (I am also granted him rollback in the past.) Ruslik_Zero 17:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
59. Support.  HWV258  23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
60. Supportmoved from neutral Candidate seems perfect qualified, and nomination statement seems great. Best of luck, I'^mperator 20:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
61. Support, I am more moved by the positives than the negatives. Net positive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
62. Support, Boopity. Good editor, needs a 3rd strike or he's out :P --Mixwell!^Talk 23:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Seems like this user will be mostly positive for Wikipedia if promoted, despite concerns below. Alexfusco⁵ 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
64. Support per above seems very much a net positve , please take on board the concerns below. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
65. Support I said I'd reconsider based on what DGG said. I think that despite my concerns about his overindulgence in replies to opposes at this RfA, that he is an outstanding editor and would be a net positive as an admin. I will assume good faith and that once he has the tools, he will continue to strive for civil discourse.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
66.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Headbomb 3. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
67. Support has some bitey issues, but has a good and reasonable perspective on things. Would be a fine admin but needs to work on personal interaction skills a bit. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
68. Support (Changing from "reluctant oppose" to "support")... After further reflection and re-reading the Q/As and later discussions, I think giving Headbomb the bit will be a net positive. I stand by my concerns mentioned below, but my current assessment is that the positives will be larger. -- Deville (Talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
69. (Moved from Neutral - see discussion there.) — Sebastian 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Displays a valid need for the tools and I believe will put them to good use. Capable and willing to learn from his mistakes. Net positive. -- œ^™ 19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Temperamentally unsuited to adminship; will be a bossy, rules-mongering admin, of the sort we have far too many of as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Can you or Wisdom provide any diffs? Was there a conflict? This is a concerning description. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   The jist of it is that PMAnderson and Tony1 clash on the MoS just about every day. I happen to side with Tony most of the time. However I can't figure out Wisdom's oppose for the life of me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I find your comments to be terse and cold. I can't really go into more detail as this is more of an impression than anything else. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Who cares if he looks to be "terse and cold"? Given his objectively verifiable record, he's very unlikely to abuse his Admin tools. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - The user strikes me as arrogant and brusque. We don't need anymore admins like that. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose - Per Wisdom89. Also, I would have liked to have seen a nom by an admin or trusted user, this third go round, to indicate counsel and support, and some sort of statement as to how things have changed since the second RfA. I won't oppose on the basis of the "nomnomnom" thing, but it doesn't speak well to maturity. Basically, I'm not convinced things have changed since the community looked at this last time. Will continue to monitor and am open to changing my !vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Temporarily withdrawing my !vote. Will see how things go the next few hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - moved from support - Per the comments above, and the more I looked at your contributions, the more I became doubtful that I could trust you with the tools. Alan16 (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Care to clarify what exactly you mean by opposition based on content? It's certainly the first time I hear someone complain about my content record. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   I assume that he meant your contributions to WP and talk namespaces, as he's opposing "per the comments above". hmwitht 15:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose moved from neutral - my rationale is written in the neutral section.--Caspian blue 13:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Headbomb, I'm finding your responses and interactions with editors in this RfA candidacy bears out the concerns expressed above. You seem to be a bit defensive and unwilling to see things from the perspective of other editors when they express a concern. This make me very wary of granting you the tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose The revelations of Q6. You chose to not bother with a "boring or drab" nomination statement/intoduction, instead believing that linking to a blog by punning a well-worn meme would suffice. The blog in question uses this phrase for nothing more than as a catchphrase headline intro, so examining it for a reference to your RfA turned out to be an complete waste of time. Presumably it didn't occur to you that using a link in your opener like this suggests some kind of statement may actually be found there. Nor that explaining your intentions only when someone asks you a question pertaining to them may be too late - and lazy. Expecting pertinent info to be revealed by questions is expecting us to do the hard work for you by asking. Your judgment of when originality = irritation is seriously lacking. Immature self-styled comedians with level n self-regard we don't need. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose I possibly see a potential candidate, but only once he gets more experience in areas such as mediation, and other policies that an admin needs to be well versed in. I don't think he takes this request seriously (there is a lack of quality to the question answering and the nomnomnom, while I do like the humorous aspect of it, I do not feel that it should be used at a Rfa. This is a time to be serious). If I have over looked his experience in the adminship areas, please feel free to comment my oppose. I hate to oppose, but I feel this time you are not ready. SparksBoy (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   Why should I be involved at places like mediation if all I want to do is technical deletions, copyvio/spam deletes and respond to edit-protected requests templates? I have no interest in Wikidrama other than what shows up at WP:PHYS, and being an admin would make no difference in those situations anyway. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   I believe every administrator will have a situation where mediation experience will be required. That is part of the mop and bucket. I am also doubtful of your answers, and as a user said above there is a bit of arrogance. Should you run again I will support if you have put your hand into mediation, and have become a bit more humble. I believe the self-nom has been a great downfall of this request. I am sorry SparksBoy (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose, per ChildofMidnight. Nakon 04:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Septentrionalis. Questions 8 and 9 also bother me. I don't see a consistent deletion rationale emerging here, which is a problem. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Reading through all 3 RFAs I see a very arrogant attitude. The previous 2 more so than this one, but the attitude is still there. I believe the intentions are good, but the attitude leads me to question if the tools will be used in a levelheaded manner as they should be. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Regretful oppose (moved to neutral - see explanation there). I think that Headbomb is an excellent editor, and a tremendous assest to the project; and, when I first looked at the contribs - I expected to fully support. After having reviewed the past RfAs, I understand the concerns about arrogance. I also know that there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance; so I assume confidence. My oppose stems from the communication methods, and while Headbomb's talk archives (not linked), indicate he is able to work effectively with users he is familiar with - I'm not convinced he has yet acquired the skills to communicate as an administrator. I inadvertently ran across this edit, and while technically accurate for the wording - I thought several other steps should have been taken. 1.) At the very least, the new user should have received an explanation for the removal. 2.) Research would indicate that it was indeed a content dispute over the term "British Isles", so there was some validity in the new users approach. I simply believe that administrators must exert the extra effort to communicate more verbosely with others, especially on the "boards". I am sorry Headbomb, and I hope that I'll be able to support your next RfA, as I do consider you a very valuable editor. — Ched :  ?  20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Actually I did plan to notify the user, but it seems that I have forgetten about it while addressing the Burger King and Burger King products issue and in the updating the WP:CNB header to reflect that the CNB isn't the place for behavioral problems. I'll fix that situation post-haste.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose Just seems not to be able to understand where other people are coming from and this encyclopaedia is a collaborative exercise. Sorry. Dean B (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Since I can't bring the physics project or anyone who's actually worked with me here (because that would be canvassing), could you, as a courtesy to me and the others here, ask the physics project (or any other collaboration I listed in Q2), if they feel that I do not understand what collaboration means on Wikipedia? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    I collaborate with Headbomb in the taskforce fluid dynamics within the physics project, and have always experienced him as cooperative, enthusiastic and supportive. So I cannot connect your objection with my experiences, in any way. -- Crowsnest (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Not to hector you, Dean, but I worked collaboratively with Headbomb, User:Mav and others a few months ago to bring Plutonium to FA status. I was impressed with his collaborative efforts there. Do you have a specific incident in mind? --John (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    My apologies for not replying sooner. I am referring to the way the editor has responded to criticism within this RfA. Good to hear he worked well with you. Dean B (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose Speaking as a major editor of Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS), I have to report a mixed experience of Headbomb's work. I am impressed with his technical ability, but dismayed by his failure to consult, and generally to respect Wikipedian norms of transparency and due process. A few of us initiated a move to highlight text using a template, and Headbomb took up the task. The result was {{xt|}}: quite useful for exhibiting examples in the guidelines at WP:MOS with distinctive styling like this. But Headbomb did not wait for consultation and refinement to be completed; he began implementing the template at WP:MOS. At first I reverted this, providing a sandbox instead and urging patience, but to no avail: see the archived discussion, starting at the words "MOSNUM is locked down". A couple of days later another in the "act now" faction unceremonially removed the last chunk of the discussion and pasted it as the beginning of a talkpage for the template itself: Template_talk:Xt. See my comment at the bottom of that talkpage. (Protocols for the new highlighting are still not settled at MOS, so it is still not uniformly applied.) I noticed that editors began staying away; I suppose they felt as I did. In any case, soon after, because of such difficulties (in particular involving another editor), I absented myself from MOS editing for six months, feeling that it had become unconsultative and unproductive. I do not think that Headbomb has shown proper consideration and restraint, or the sort of collaborative orientation that we should expect in our admins. A definite oppose, for now at least.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    That was a proper use of WP:BOLD and the other editors agreed with that. Using {{xt}} on the MOS as it was being developed was in no way detrimental to its development. In fact it helped developed the template because it could be tested much more extensively than in a sandbox. If I recall correctly, when I implemented it on the MOS, the remaining tweaks on it was the particular shade of green or maroon and what exact size (serif in the 100-125 % range) that was to be used. Had there been more opposition to this I would've reverted myself, but you were the only one (and the MoS is one of the most conflict-prone areas of Wikipedia). In the words of Greg L:
    

    "I was appreciative that Headbomb volunteered to do the heavy lifting in implementing the idea on MOS; it provides the perfect sandbox, with many different kinds of text set in the largest imaginable variety of contexts. [...] Headbomb’s approach (give it a whirl and see how it looks), while WP:BOLD, seemed a sensible solution. [...] Army figured out how to make the text display in quotation boxes and made the template. Headbomb is enthusiastically doing the heavy lifting here, and is clearly being very meticulous about it to ensure nothing gets messed up. You and I did the easy part."

    
    Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    You declare that to be a proper use of WP:BOLD. Even if it were, you did not take heed of me at all – one the few others who remained in that discussion: you simply treated WP:MOS as a sandbox – which Greg L, whom you quote above (now under a 12-month topic ban for various disruptions on other MOS matters), explicitly said was OK. I'm sure I'm not the only one to disagree. We have separate sandboxes for a good reason. WP:MOS is an important page for the whole project, and you disrupted it. I did not fight, I left for six months. But first I spoke up, as others did not. As for the "heavy lifting", yes: you are a good "heavy lifter"; but the fine-tuning development work for WP:MOS is still not done, even now. Specifically for this case, in the rush to implement this tech-aspect aspect of the proposal, at least two other features were not addressed: setting examples off on new lines and differentiating examples from mentions of items. They are still not dealt with. Frankly, your response here does not demonstrate any willingness to contemplate an alternative point of view. If anything, it confirms my case against entrusting you with the tools. So I agree with ChildofMidnight, as others here do also.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Could you point me where others thought this was disruptive? I watch the MOS/MOSNUM for as long as I can remember and I don't recall a single complaint about my implementation of {{xt}}. As for the "fine tuning on the MoS not being done", it has nothing to do with the development of {{xt}}, but rather with the fact that MoS is protected half of the time. I implemented {{xt}} as best I could on the sections that I cared about, but others have to do their part as well. If you think improvements can still be made, then start a thread on WT:MOS or its subpages and point out how {{xt}} has not been implemented as you think it should, or how sections which don't use {{xt}} should use it and we can work on fixing the stuff you think is broken. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    As I have said above, Headbomb, "I spoke up, as others did not". The climate was bullying and bulldozing. Not everyone has an appetite for that on a talkpage. People who spoke cautiously about the proposal were not given time or attention. MOS was not moving in and out of protection: WP:MOSNUM was, and MOS was disrupted when people came in from MOSNUM to do this template work. I suggested that they come; but I regretted it, because they were so pushy. You implemented the template too soon. There were issues to consider first, as I pointed out. Rather than edit-war or wrangle, I said my piece, and left soon after. I have acknowledged that you are technically adept, and that you are a good "heavy lifter". I see no reciprocity on your part, or any hint that I might have any sort of a point. Sorry. I am still not impressed with your attitude.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    But that's the thing, how can you say you speak for others if no one said a thing? Who were these others you spoke for? I just invited you to start a thread on the MOS so we can resolve this. Look I want to help, I really do. But you're just throwing blame around rather than trying to find a solution. My offer still stand however, if you want to find a solution to the problem with {{xt}} on the MOS, start a thread and we'll work on it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    I came here not to speak for others, but simply to report my experience and analysis as a committed editor of WP:MOS (check the stats for that page). From my experience, I dread the prospect of you having the tools. If you do get them, I certainly hope you will not intervene in MOS affairs, given the disruption you were party to without the tools. I see that you offer solutions now, when there is something serious at stake for you. But of course I accept the verdict that will issue from the process here, Headbomb. I only wish your respect for process was as robust.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    It's been 9 months and you haven't said a thing since. You brought the issue now, so I offer a solution now. If you brought the issue 27 days ago, I would have offered a solution 27 days ago. But my offer stands: start a thread at WT:MOS / WT:MOSNUM, suggesting improvements and pointing out specific problem, and we'll (as in you, me, and the other MOS regulars) will work on it. My offer is made in good faith, why not take it? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    I did not, and do not now, ask you for a "solution". In December 2008 I asked you not to disrupt WP:MOS, so that editors could negotiate all the issues, before implementation. Since then I have withdrawn from MOS, for reasons I state above. I've only just come back, now that certain restrictions on other editors are in place. Why do I not accept your offer? First, I have no reason to think that you are especially competent concerning the subtleties involved (you did not discuss them then, after all). Second, your offer is made in circumstances where it is transparently to your advantage to make it; I would rather have others involved who have a better motivation. Third, MOS editors are now addressing other delicate matters; when the time is right we should certainly return to this issue. I have it on my list. Now, please do not make it necessary to repeat myself. I have said all I have to say about your candidature. If anything, all I see is reason to confirm that stance.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose per ChildOfMidnight. I don't usually oppose "per someone," but he wrote it perfectly. iMatthew ^talk at 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose per CoM. No-brainer. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I do not have diffs at this time but what I have seen from this editor in the past matches up with the concerns brought up earlier (opposes #1 and #2 and numerous in agreement with them). The concerns regarding temperment are worrisome but when combined with the underwhelming (lack of a) nomination statement, as well as answers to the questions that are not entirely confidence inspiring, all add up to a lack of faith in how this candidate would perform as an administrator. Shereth 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose I actually came here to support, but after reading through the RfA, I agree with the concerns posted above. Headbomb, you are just too defensive. Perhaps you can collaborate fine regarding content, but admins need to keep level heads all of the time. I've had very rude things said over my years as an admin, and you just can't let it get to you. CoM expresses my concerns well. hmwitht 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. hmwitht 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose. I was undecided until I saw your invitation to examine your deleted contribs log. My findings made me end up in this section. While it is true that you are usually able to identify inappropriate pages (I would expect nothing less from an editor with your track record), I find many of your taggings to be arbitrary, incorrect, and often WP:BITEy, and I fear that you would continue this habit if you were to delete those pages personally. Take for instance Mind reading technology, which you tagged as "patent nonsense". The lead sentence, "Mind reading refers to the ability to discern the thoughts of others without the normal means of communication." is clearly not incoherent nor gibberish. WP:CSD G1 is unambiguously clear that "... implausible theories, or hoaxes" are not patent nonsense.
    Then there's Stickfigure story, an article detailing the author's "stick figure stories", with elaborate plot summaries, which according to you "Epically fails WP:N / WP:CSD A9", re-tagged by you after a speedy had previously been declined. Clearly, A9 is inappropriate since it is not a musical recording. While the subject could be said to fall short of WP:N, this is a non-criterion, and I for one would prefer to keep "deleted per internet meme" out of the deletion log.
    Another example, David Baker (Physics Professor), your reason for deletion is "Patent Hoax (link given are bunks crap)". I would expect an administrator to be able to suppress his actual thoughts on the matter, and formulate himself a bit more diplomatically.
    My conclusion is that while your deletion tagging is probably a net positive, I am worried that your actual deletion work would not be, for the reasons outlined above. I am confident that you will be able to amend these issues fairly easily by reading up on WP:CSD, but I would have expected you to have done so before standing for RfA. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

    Hard of me to clarify why exactly I wrote what I wrote since I don't have access to the deleted versions of these articles, but going from memory I know that by patent nonsense I did not mean G1, but simply patent nonsense in the sense "If you eat birds, you'll be able to grow wings and fly" is patent nonsense. For the stickfigure story, I know I either meant A7 (or to be more precise, the spirit of A7 no indication of importance) rather than A9 (musical recording lacking importance), or meant the spirit of A9 (not an album, but a piece of creative content nonetheless). If I meant "spirit of A7", and tagged as A9, then it was probably a mistake caused by me doing back and forth between the two pages and catching the bold "no indication of importance" in A9 rather than catching the one in A7.
    
    However, I'll agree that these speedies are a bit bitey (thanks for pointing that out, now I can rectify this). I mostly saw them as messages to the admin performing the speedies, so I'll adjust the language I use in them in the future and will turn them into messages for the general editing community instead. I would also be more explicit in the reasons when performing deletions myself, since these would not be reviewed by someone else. My track record speaks volumes about me adjusting my behaviour as soon as someone points out I could be doing something in a better way, so I hope you'll reconsider your oppose. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

    Yes. As stated above, "I am confident that you will be able to amend these issues fairly easily by reading up on WP:CSD, but I would have expected you to have done so before standing for RfA", especially considering how recent some of these are. Now, you may very well pass this RfA, in that case I still hope you will keep this in mind. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

17. I have never mett this user, but I am worried by the other opposers' commnets. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose Based on the answer to my question above, and to other matters brought up above, I do not think he should have the tools. The problem is occasional ill-considered and non-consultative decision-making . I was very reluctant to oppose such an excellent editor, but I simply do not trust him to follow the rules, and not following the rules while having the admin powers to delete & protect -- the very fields he intends to work in--is very worrisome. He prefers to do what he thinks is right, using whatever rationale is at hand. One As for my qy, removing a mis-spelling or mis-formatting is good work, but given that the mistake is made fairly frequently--not that people think it right, I suspect it's simply a mechanical mistake in letting go of the shift key too soon-- so it will be searched for, too. Redirecting to the right form is sufficient to teach the lesson. It is against policy to remove redirects from spelling errors, unless they are one-time freaks. That's the right policy, too. Our primary goal is to get people to the information they want, not teach them to type or spell. We're an encyclopedia, not a tutoring service. Two Anyone prepared to become an admin should recognize the inadvisability of making major changes--even formatting changes-- in the MOS or other policy without prior agreement. Three over-expansive use of delete as nonsense G1, has caused errors, when people don't recognize that something unfamiliar actually makes sense. Four deleting because of the "spirit of A7" instead of the actual way A7 is worded, is a thoroughly improper use of the buttons .. Five-- today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum genesis-- an AfD on a one sentence article 5 days after it was created, instead of asking for expansion and references. the nom statement reads: "neutral, listing to generate discussion". Misuse of AfD--I've suggested a speedy keep there. I apologize for what may seem like hostility on my part here, as I think very highly of Headbomb as an editor. I hope he forgives me, but it's only fair to explain in some detail why I'm opposing. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    1 Concerning the Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a vs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, there was/is no link on Wikipedia to the bad spelling version, other than the bot-generated list of the dump generated from the |journal= parameter of citations templates. The search function of wikipedia doesn't care for U S a or U S A, so if you type the former, you will get the same hits as the latter. There is no situation where such a redirect would serve any purpose, other than when someone would make a link (where the person making that link would best be served by a redlink to indicate that s/he made a typo). 2/3 Uh...? I'm confused. What are you refering to? 4 I already mentionned that I used the db templates as messages to the reviewing admin and that I will now use them as messages to the community at large (See for example my latest at Eur J Pharmacol. "{{db|Unlikely redirect, abbrevations are Eur. J. Pharmacol. or Eur J Pharmacol, not a hybrid Eur J Pharmacol.}}", compared to my previous style for this kind of speedy {{db|Unlikely redirect}}. Also see here for a complete rational). 5 Using AfD to generate discussion is not a misuse of AfD. I used it several times in the past, and it always produced great results. For this particular article, I consulted with the astronomy wikiproject first to see if I was the only one feeling that this was non-notable. RuslikZero (who is pretty involved in the Astronomy project) replied "Nothing notable. Should be deleted." And so after that I took it to AfD. I hope that clears things up. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    I am surprised that it was not deleted. My search revealed no reliable sources. I wanted to participate in this AFD, but it was closed very quickly. So, this AFD failure was partially my fault, because I should have written something more than just "Nothing notable. Should be deleted." Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose per many others here. You seem to be generally a good and productive editor, but you put WP:IAR on far too high a pedestal for my taste. Admins need to shoot from the hip sometimes, but I would hope that there would be a general feeling at an RFA that community norms are generally understood and followed by the editor in question. For instance WP:BOLD is fine, but not all the time or on disputed pages. I don't get the feeling that civility is otherwise a major problem, with the few exceptions noted above, since everyone will slip up a few times with your number of edits. In summary, I am opposing because admins need to be predictable. AKAF (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose Enough concerns have been raised that I have to oppose at this time.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Weak Oppose Sorry, but per Wisdom89. I hope to change, but honestly, Wisdom is right, so oppose now. Thanks. America69 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    You !voted Support earlier, which is causing the RfX report to display a duplicate vote. Could you please cross out the vote you don't want? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    76.227.79.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) struck out the earlier vote, but I feel that is not correct for the following reasons: (1) We can not assume that 76.227.79.204 is the same as User:America69. (2) If 76 is not America69, then 76 is guessing America69's intention. This is particularly hard because America69 explicitly wrote in the first vote "I see nothing to suggest that what the opposition says is true." - but then refers in this second vote to "per Wisdom89" - an opposing vote that has already been there at the time of the first vote. I therefore think the safest for now is to strike both votes and let America69 decide which one to keep. — Sebastian 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry about all this trouble. I had no clue I !voted twice, but I am keeping the oppose !vote. And the IP was not me, just for the record. Thanks. America69 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose per the speedies brought up by decltype. Misuse of patent nonsense is a pet peeve of mine, and I just can't support a candidate who mistagged an article just a week ago yet wants to work in CSD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose Although the candidate has shown to be an asset to Wikipedia, I don't think he's ready to be an admin. some interactions (including his answer to almost all oppose votes) seem to be somewhat worrisome. Likeminas (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Weak oppose - probably could do a good job, but the concerns raised here make me worry about the drama potential. --B (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose The candidate has definitely been an asset to Wikipedia and my opposition shouldn't be seen as a lack of gratitude in that area. But I don't see evidence that their communication skills and conflict resolution is up to the standards we would hold an administrator to. Headbomb is curt (by admission) and does seem defensive in this RfA (as noted by others). I'm also uncomfortable with their opposition to the proposed deletion process. -- Atama^chat 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose Sorry, but you just seem too "argumentative" to be an admin, based on past experience and what has been raised here. Jeni ^(talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose per issues with tagging for speedy deletion and approach towards prodding (and yes, prods get checked and rechecked). Dekimasuよ! 04:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    Reluctant oppose, but oppose nonetheless. I am reluctant because I think the candidate is a very good editor, but I have to do it because I don't think the candidate has the right temperament or attitude, at least yet. I'm getting a bit of a WP:TRUTH vibe from the candidate and not a small amount of arrogance; these might not be so bad for an editor, especially one who spends most of their time in scientific areas, but they are potentially very bad for an admin. I also think that this candidate has little to no respect for process; WP:IAR is a last resort, not a first. I do see some improvement since the earlier RfAs, so it's possible that at some point in the future I could support this candidate, but not now. -- Deville (Talk) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    On further reflection, changing !vote -- Deville (Talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

    Now arrogance is an opinion and you're entitled to it (I will say that I don't understand how I come across as arrogant however), but to say that I have no respect for process simply isn't true. I regularly consult with WikiProjects when it comes to making things that I am even remotely unsure of, or make structural changes to templates/categorization/etc... See for recent example see this self-revert [1] following my discovery that redirecting that page was controversial (8 failed move requests), [2] (concerns of notability/neologism), [3] (concerns of notability), [4] (concerns of notability), [5] (massive re-structuring of the categorization of elements and isotopes articles), and so on. WP:BOLD/WP:IAR and WP:PROCESS are not mutually exclusive. If anything is unclear, please feel free to ask me a question (or several), request additional examples, and so on. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    My two-cent advice for RFA/RFB candidates is: if something sounds like an insult, try to imagine that it's not an insult, because that's usually the right interpretation. In this case, my guess is that Deville is saying that sometimes you say things that sound like they might be indicative of arrogance (right, Deville?) ... and really, Headbomb, if this has never occurred to you before and you have no idea what he's talking about, then re-read your previous two RFAs and think harder. I'm sticking with "support" because you seem more approachable than most scientists I know, and I'd like to see more scientistical admins. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    I can honestly say that I cannot relate one bit to what is said about me sounding arrogant, and yes I do remember my previous RfAs very well. Terse I can understand (and I've admitted and corrected this as far as speedies were concerned). But arrogant, no, I just don't see it. RfA is just about the only place I've ever been called arrogant in my entire life and it greatly puzzles me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    To clarify: I don't think you're arrogant, and I agree with your puzzlement. I respectfully ask you to consider that your puzzlement isn't with this particular batch of opposers, it's with the human species, and brother, I'm right there with you ... I wish people would take time and look at the whole picture before making any kind of important decision. But people tend to put a lot of stock in their intuitions, good and bad, and learning how best to deal with this takes a long time. I'm 52, and I don't have the hang of it yet. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

28. For badgering oppose views, including this aggressive challenge. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm saddened by that. Though I opposed, I was hopeful that the candidate would convince me to switch to neutral. That diff is just too much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    Nods, it was too much for me as well - especially given that it is directed towards DGG, who was so careful and regretful in his detailed explanation for his oppose. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    Sigh. I'll let DGG clarify, we just had a great discussion as a result of me contacting him.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm willing to listen.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, it is much appreciated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, nothing DGG says at this time is likely to change my view, as it is based on your actions/behavior as exemplified by the tone of that post. Per CoM, not open to criticism, however well meant or constructive. Too argumentative. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

    I consider his note on my talk page appropriate. This has been a very difficult matter for me, because Headbomb is an editor I greatly admire, and almost always support. He is surely aware of this, and, in such a circumstance, I would certainly expect anyone to be very disappointed at an oppose such I I felt obliged to make--and I would accept a great deal of an angrier response than that. I did not respond on my talk p. because I was instead discussing it with him offsite. H. and I have now had a series of exchanges, which has occupied my mind all day; and though it did not change my opinion, it did at least clarify matters between us, & is much better than harbouring resentments. I admit a little puzzlement at people telling me I should have taken offense at something I did not take offense at. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose I concur entirely with the analysis of decltype, and largely with that of DGG. I should note that I, too, am generally a great fan of the candidate's participation qua editor, especially qua content editor, and that even as I do hold certain of the concerns about temperament of Wisdom, et al., I can imagine that I might support a future RfA upon the candidate's demonstrating a better understanding of our criteria for speedy deletion and, crucially, an appreciation of the presumption against speedying, consistent with a narrow construction of the CSD. Joe (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose I was not impressed with your initial request documentation but sat back to see what effects the comments of others would impress upon you in relation to that area. I note your change of heart but in truth it appears to have come too late. That said, I find myself very concerned by your tendency towards argumentative behaviour - particularly with regards the badgering of !voters at this RfA. These concerns are diffed by others above, and I concur broadly with the views of editors such as KillerChihuahua.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose I don't doubt for a second your work ethic, nor your commitment, but I don't feel you are quite ready to cope with the overwhelmingly annoying people you may come across as an admin. I'd certainly be happy to support next time, but for now, sorry. :( \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Backslash Forwardslash and VirtualSteve. You appear to be a great editor, but I have concerns with how you react to annoying people, and your response to some of the opposes. Plastikspork (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose mostly per ChildofMidnight, as well as per DGG. PGWG (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Sorry but cannot support, the concerns raised in this RFA just do not give me enough confidence to support you becoming an admin at this time. Attitude concerns combined with those relating to deletion make me concerned enough to not be sure about how you would behave as an admin. A lesser concern for me (which I would not have opposed only over) is over the userbox saying "This user votes Delete regularly for the Article Deletion Squadron." which I would be concerned if an admin displayed as inexperienced editors who come to the user page to query a deletion may very well be put off by this sentiment without clicking the link to see that the page refered to is humorous. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Too many concerns listed above. Friday (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose, per the argument by decltype and DGG, alongside the apparent badgering of opposes. –blurpeace ^(talk)

Neutral

1. Neutral I am not persuaded by his self-nomination rationale, or lack of, or his answer to my question on this matter (which I thought was clear; apparently not). This could be a useful admin, but his decision to stay away from more "situations that are not well-defined" would be well advised, I think. best of luck, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved to oppose) Since this is a self nomination, shouldn't the candidate introduce him/herself with more to people who never encounter him/her before? I don't think that the insincere preparation for adminship gives people (or at least for me) a good impression to support or trust the user for having the bits.--Caspian blue 03:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I agree. I would have liked to have been able to read an account of the editor's interests and reasons for pursuing adminship. Answering questions is a different format. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   See answer to Q6 for why. Q2 should cover what i do, and Q1 what I plan to do with the tools. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   The nomination statement is a summary of what you've done what you would do. I found the answers unappealing - exactly what Wisdom89 said.--Caspian blue 13:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral per above. One two three... 08:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
3. I don't think this candidate has done enough thinking about the rules he wishes to enforce. But I do trust him to seek consensus and implement it (he won't be a loose cannon), so I'm going with neutral rather than oppose.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I honestly expected to support you, as you had some really good contributions, but, seriously, no nomination statement? Frankly, if you take adminship seriously enough, you'd realize just how important a nomination statement is. Again, sorry. I really hope this RfA passes, though. Cheers, I'^mperator 18:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Why state things twice when stating them once is possible? I mean is the fact that I choose the questions as the place to state why I think I should be an admin instead of the "designated place" such a big deal that it warrants changing a support to neutral/oppose? I mean RfA is bureaucratic by nature, but this seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. A desire for getting to the point is not a sign of "not taking things seriously", but rather a sign of disliking pointless repetitions. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I'd rather you'd added a nom statement. Simply because I think it would be better if you'd introduced yourself - a quick summary of edit counts + experience. Just a few sentences is all I'd look for. I would like to say though, that this isn't the reason I opposed you. Alan16 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Well what more is there to say than Q1 (planned use of tools) and Q2 (what I do in wikipedia)? If you have a question for me, feel free to add one. For the edit count there's the counters (although they seem to be down at the moment). In the mean time, my stats have been posted on the talk page, so you can take a look at that until the toolserver decides to get back to normal.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   There is a difference between an answer to a question and a free form opening statement that addresses the community, introduces, and explains someone's reasons and approach for being a candidate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Well put ChildofMidnight. Alan16 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Well you're all free to oppose on form rather than on content if that's what you really want to do, but that seems terribly counterproductive to me. I've nothing else to say on this topic, sorry we couldn't see eye to eye on this. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Do you really think that that sort of response is the way to go in an RFA? And for your information, I opposed your RFA for content reasons - the lack of a nomination statement just happened to confirm my decision. Alan16 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   Headbomb, I understand that this is a stressful process and you may feel attacked. But the core issue is not that you didn't use a nomination statement, but how you've reacted to good faith editors noting they would have liked to see one. I don't think anyone has said they are opposing you because you didn't include one. The issue is how you have reacted to suggestions and input on this issue in a circumstance when you're expected to be in top form and on your best behavior. If you had acknowledged and recognized the point expressed by other editors instead of just dismissing and refuting it, that would have been more diplomatic and shown that you have empathy and sensitivity to the viewpoints and considerations of other people. I hope you enjoy your work here and that you continue to make helpful contributions. The many supporters you have is a testament to your good work. Whatever the outcome here, I hope you consider the concerns expressed by editors who feel that you could be more considerate, collegial, and openminded toward those with differing viewpoints. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   I can handle that people would've liked an intro statement. However, people should also be able to handled that I feel that Q1 and Q2 is the equivalent. I've invited people to ask questions. If they feel Q1 and Q2 doesn't sufficiently address the reasons of my nominations, they are more than welcomed to write one of their own. If this was FAC, the comparison is an objection that cannot be addressed because it comes down to "I don't like it". I'm greeted with an incredible amount of bad faith, completely disproportionate with what I plan to do with the tools. If I address my opposition, I'm depicted as arrogant/badgering. Anywhere else it would be seen as engaging in discussion and consensus building.
   
   Let's not lose perspective of what effects me getting the tools would have on Wikipedia. I want to delete bad redirects and answer {{editprotected}} requests, not become a one-man Arbcom.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral - I don't know enough about him to make a comment, but I have an issue that should be considered - he recently deleted a post I made to the content dispute board because he felt it had no business being moved from the ANI board. I have always read that removing or re-factoring other contributor's posts was bad form and a violation of policy. He was civil about it, but isn't this one of the simple basics of WP? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   Please read User_talk:Headbomb#My_Request for an explanation. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral for now. In my very brief work with Headbomb on a recent issue, I must say that I am impressed with his efforts. When I expressed a concern, he addressed the issues in a calm, rational, and professional manner. Upon reflection, I do recall how hectic and trying an RFA can be, and can certainly understand items that slip through the cracks. I believe that some improvements can be made in the communication areas, but his work in addressing any and all issues that I raised sufficiently impressed me that I am no longer willing to oppose this RFA. I will continue to monitor this until closing, and I wish Headbomb the best of luck. — Ched :  ?  12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I think you have made some excellent contributions to the project, however the concerns noted above are potentially problematic. I still think you would definitely be a plus to the project as a sysop, especially with a few months more experience along with some better interactions with others. Hope to see you back here in a few months if this doesn't pass. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
7. NeutralPer above in neutral and oppose.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 03:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

   Headbomb clearly is an intelligent editor, and his main strength seems to be organizing and getting things done quickly. In my impression the strong emotional oppose votes seem ludicrous, and I'm wondering if some people are subconsciously biased by his scary, geeky user name. However, the main cause for the opposition seems to be the flip side of his getting things done quickly: He sometimes seems to step on other people's feet without apologizing. That matters for me: My main criterion for RfA is people skills, because I believe that's what's most amiss among admins. For that reason, I would like to see some commitment to a more respectful communication, especially with editors that are not as intelligent as he is. — Sebastian 04:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

   (Response per email request). While I don't feel unrespectfull, I do agree that there is room from improvements. So, yes I can certainly commit to that.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you. I just moved to support, based on the e-mail you sent me a moment ago in reply to mine, but I'm happy that you wrote it more clearly here. Just to clarify, I didn't mean that you're disrespectful. Saying "please" is respectful, but saying "s'il te plaît", and meaning it literally, remembering that other editors do things volontiers here, is what I meant. — Sebastian 17:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (Moved to support) For now but I will move somewhere, I would like to give this editor the chance to be an admin. he has a lot of experience and wants it, as he is here for the third time. I see issues with maturity..I don't know his age, not that youth is a reason to oppose, this look close so votes need to be well considered. Admins need a very level head to do the work, it is a difficult work and the ability to go slow and mellow is required, I am undecided, I will look more at contributions and comments, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

   Feel free to add your own question if it'll help you make a choice. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral. I have a generally positive impression of Headbomb, but understand how some editors could have found their interactions less positive. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I hope Headbomb will consider carefully concerns raised, some of which may be valid and help him to interact better with the spirit of the encyclopedia. Some may prove to be unfounded. I do not share the view that Headbomb is temperamentally unsuited for adminship, and I will not oppose this RfA. Geometry guy 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Both sides raise good issues. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Headbomb is clearly an intelligent user and has a strong dedication to Wikipedia. His contributions as an editor are excellent. I think he'd most likely make a positive contribution as an admin as well, but I don't have enough evidence to be sure. I don't view any of the oppose concerns as a disqualifier, so I won't support. However, there are enough minor concerns that I can't support either. Writing a nomination statement after realizing people wanted one was a plus, but the tendency to question most opposes what a minus. Overall, I am completely neutral but hope to support in the event of a future RfA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (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.