Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Final (72/85/10); ended 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC) — xaosflux Talk 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


Headbomb (talk · contribs) – When it comes to Wikipedia, Headbomb has not only been there, done that, and got the T-shirt, he's bought the T-shirt store and set up a successful local franchise. He’s done a bit of everything, participating in debates on AfD, asking for page protection, and spending lots of time on the bot noticeboards and technical areas of the village pump. He’s the only seriously active member of the Bot Approvals Group who doesn’t have the bit. He's no slouch when it comes to content either, being a key player in getting a major topic like Quark through FAC and doing lots of work in science-related articles, where he's dealt well with the onslaught of quackery and pseudoscience pushers that turn up in that area.

As you can see from the "4" at the top of the page, Headbomb has had a couple of goes at RfA before, but all of them are in the distant past, and they all had the usual pitfalls one can expect from self-nominations. That isn't the case this time around, so I hope we now get a general opinion that it's long past time that Headbomb should have the tools. There are clear and obvious areas he can make a difference to the project, and he should be allowed to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: In no particular order, I'd be involved with bot blocks (I've got plenty of BOT/BAG experience to know when to block and when to unblock), gnoming some protected articles [e.g. updating bibcodes on a protected article in the same manner Bibcode Bot (talk · contribs) would since the bot doesn't have admin rights], dealing with edit protect requests/WP:RFPP, the occasional revdel for egregious BLP violations, and revdels in when dealing with defamation/doxxing of our editors (with possible kickbacks to the oversight people in case of particularly sensitive/damaging information).

For an example of rogue bot where that would have been needed, I'd have blocked Yobot (talk · contribs) long before we'd have needed an ARBCOM case about it. We might still have needed an ARBCOM case about it, but I know I would have stepped in as an admin well before there was a need for the case. To be clear, Yobot currently operates both with consensus and within the scope of its BRFAs, so I'm not arguing that it needs to be blocked now. But it wasn't always the case in the past.

One thing I'd do more is take a look at old deleted journal articles deleted for WP:TOOSOON reasons (e.g. Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry) that may now be notable. It'd often be much easier to undelete and update articles which are now notable than rewrite them from scratch.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: See User:Headbomb/My work for an overview. As for what I'm proudest of, for content, I'd say the Quark featured article / the List of baryons featured list. The understanding the later made me switch my Master's thesis topic from the photovoltaism of organic semi-conductors to particle physics instead. I'm also quite proud of creating particle (an absolutely vital topic in science) / bouncing ball (something seen by nearly every high school/undergrad student, but often approximated to the point of hiding very interesting physics). I'm a physicist by trade, and I felt I've written good stuff (helped by others of course) on high importance general interest topics. The debate on the validity of particle as an article even led to the creation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC!

For behind the scenes, I'm quite proud of my policy (and related) work on WP:NASTRO/WP:BOTPOL (WP:BOTISSUE section particularly)/WP:NJOURNALS, supplementary pages like WP:Bot Approvals Group/Guide and WP:Bots/Dictionary, and I'm particularly proud of the creation of WP:Article Alerts, used by literally thousands of WikiProjects and taskforces to notify them of ongoing discussions.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In 10 years / 190,000+ edits, it's pretty impossible to avoid conflicts, but I've nonetheless manage to keep a squeaky clean block log. I have opinions, strong ones, and I'm one who would rather act than let things stagnate. Sadly, for a lot of people, having an opinion and being WP:BOLD in some areas means being disqualified for adminship, because they can only support admins who agree with them. I never had any tolerance for anyone lording their position in content/policy disputes (or any other efforts to create special classes of editors like WP:AEE, see the deletion logs), and I'd hold myself to the same standards I hold any other admin out there. In case of content disputes, I tend to stick to the issues when possible, rather than have meta debates on the personalities of those involved. In practice, the most heated disputes are with a handful of people who hold extreme/absolutist positions over interpretations of policy, or who demand exceptions so their pet subject gets exempted from normal standards.

In practice, what this would mean is that I'd rather keep my voice as an editor, than get involved as an admin in AfD/policy debates and the like. In issue where I'm uninvolved (usually BOT-related disputes), I try to be a good mediator, and balance the concerns of the complainers with what can be reasonably done to address them.

With some 190K+ edits, it's impossible to not have ruffled some feathers over the years, or to have had the occasional bad day, but I don't think anyone could accuse me of WP:NOTHERE or to be in danger of abusing the tools.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Boing! said Zebedee
4. I'm greatly concerned by your aggressive conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article, which is very recent. There were also concerns about your demeanour in your previous RFA runs, and though I'd usually largely disregard them after such a long time, I'm concerned that you are still prone to such an aggressive approach to discussion even after all this time. Do you have any comments?
A: Lourdes below addresses most of this. For the rest, see answer to #3 about admins abusing their positions. An admin shoehorned a non-gender dispute into a gender dispute so they could use their admin position to place the article under discretionary sanctions and stiffle debate. ARBCOM later clarified that the article wasn't under sanction, even though the template on the article said that it was, and that the admin in question said she placed the article under discretionary sanction, and that I'd be blocked taken to WP:AE for removing them. I was harassed off-wiki as well for this (you can see some of the nastiness and character assassination in [1]), although I've got no idea who in that debate it was that wrote this. As far as I'm concerned, things returned to normal when the discretionary template got removed. That's all I have to say on this issue here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you show me where the admin in question threatened to block you? Genuine question - I've read the ANI, the article talk page, the AfD, and your and their talk pages from the period, and I can't see it (though it is entirely possible I've missed it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking back, the specific threat was "If you continue to disrupt the article, including by removing the tag, I will take this to arbitration enforcement." So not a specific threat to block me directly, but given the failure to observe WP:INVOLVED in that same dispute, I was highly concerned of getting blocked by that admin. I've updated the above for accuracy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Taking an issue to Arb Enforcement is also not an admin action, and nothing the admin did or said in that discourse (as far as I can see) was an admin action - so your continued insistence that there was a breach of WP:INVOLVED still appears incorrect to me. Can you show us an example of actual admin action taken in that incident that actually amounts to a violation of WP:INVOLVED? And are you still insisting that you will not address the question of your own gross incivility? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want a direct statement on the matter of incivility, sure maybe I could have handled that with more tact. But I have severe issues with abuses of powers, or being told I'm some anti-women sexist when I put quite a lot of effort in being fair and open minded to everyone, regardless of gender identification, and am extremely supportive of gender-gap reducing efforts. Turns out there was no admin action taken by SV, but SV did make this into a gender dispute so she could slap the article with a sanction, the template clearly said that the article was under sanction, and SV claimed, black on white that she placed the articles under sanction, and the sanction page clearly says that only admins may revoke sanctions. So what's an non-admin editor to think in that situation? It took an AE to clarify that, despite SV's insistence that the article was under sanction and the template saying the article was under sanction, that it wasn't actually under sanction because no official admin actions were logged. Would I have reacted this way if a non-admin behaved in the same was SV did? No, because there no one would have a position of power over someone else. Would I react this way if I was on the receiving end of a complaint about admin actions I may take? No, because then I have the position of power, and the standards of civility/behaviour are much higher. Much like bot operators have heightened expectations on communication (WP:BOTCOMM), so do admins have heightened responsibilities on communication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I think what Boing! said Zebedee is getting at is that RfA is a place to show everybody you can dial it back and bite your lip, no matter how frustrated you get over things. This note from Dennis Brown explains it better than I can here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
And you're still getting it wrong about what Discretionary Sanctions notices are (which is a big WP:IDHT thing) and you are continuing to make what seem like baseless accusations against SlimVirgin. I don't see anywhere where she (or anyone else) accused you of being an "anti-women sexist". Anyway, no more questions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, a lot of this was clarified at the AE, and I consider the issue settled. People had concerns during my RfBAG too, yet my handling of WP:BRFAs or WP:BOTPOL has never been problematic. I don't see why it'd be any different here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Joe Roe
5. You've had three previous RfAs. Why do you think they didn't succeed? Have you made any changes to your editing behaviour in response?
A: Honestly, they were so long ago that I don't particularly recall. A bit of WP:NOTNOW for the first one. On specific things I remember, one that came up was low edit summary usage, so started using edit summaries (I think I have something like 300 out of 190,000+ without edit summaries, pretty much all from my pre-RFA days). The optional RFA poll I took back in February mentioned CSD logs, so I got Twinkle and do CSDs via Twinkle now to have a log of CSDs. There are other more substantial comments, which more or less boils down to "Headbomb can have an attitude, this is good" vs "Headbomb can have an attitude, this is bad", and my answer to that has been addressed in #3. However you feel about me, I have an extreme dislike of arguments from authority, or the "I'm an admin, so my voice is more important" mentality. I feel the question should be "Will I make good use of the tools, or abuse them?" rather than "Did you piss people off in the past, or does everyone like you?".

For an example of a position of responsibility I have on Wikipedia, I'm involved at WP:BAG and WP:BRFAs, and I've religiously stayed away from approving completely non-controversial tasks simply because I was involved in the discussions that led to those bots being requested (e.g. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TokenzeroBot). Likewise, I have template editing rights, and you don't see me using those rights in disputes concerning templates. I don't intend to behave any differently with respect to WP:INVOLVED. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from BU Rob13
6. Do you have any intention to perform any admin actions related to arbitration enforcement or discretionary sanctions?
A: Hell no. The further away I am from AN/ANI/AE or any other drama boards, the better. I intend to focus on technical areas. I'm not even interested in closing AFDs. I'd much rather keep my voice and let others decide. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Ivanvector
7. A hypothetical scenario: you're working with a small group of editors on an FA promotion, but you can't agree on a particularly controversial point. While discussion proceeds normally, one editor is clearly becoming agitated that others aren't agreeing with them. They abandon the discussion, then when consensus arrives at an edit they don't like, they stubbornly revert the edit and keep reverting anyone who tries to reinstate the consensus edit. You're the only admin involved in the discussion; when you try to reinstate the edit with an edit summary referring to the talk page discussion, they blank the section of the article containing the edit with an edit summary "admin Headbomb is WPINVOLVED and is an ASSHOLE". Then they blank the talk page, move the article to Headbome is a ASSFaCE, then they post on your talk page "you are a ADMIN ABUSE and i will SUE YOU IN COURT FOR ERASING MY WORK", then they blank your talk page, then they restore the legal threat but now it contains your real, full name, then they replace the content of the article with a 200MB image of a penis. They then begin rapidly adding the same image to 1755 (band), ADA collider, Andreyev Acoustics Institute, Baikal Deep Underwater Neutrino Telescope, bioRxiv, Bouncing ball, and so on. Keeping WP:INVOLVED in mind, how do you respond?
A: I'd probably laugh and then report them to WP:ANI (with a recommendation for block+revdel/oversight), and let someone uninvolved handle them. I'd rollback the blanking/penis images under vandalism, but as far as admin actions are concerned I'd leave to others. If I felt something was so egregious that it needed to be immediately revdel'd, then I'd revdel it and post a notice on WP:AN saying I did so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I think you had a little more fun writing that hypothetical than you're supposed to. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Power~enwiki
8. Can you describe, in your own words, what "discretionary sanctions" are and how they work?
A: From my experience, I'd describe them as holy 'thou shall nots' issued on high by ARBCOM to deal with the worst shit shows of Wikipedia, giving licenses to admins to rain down holy fire issue blocks and bans on offenders without remorse as they see fit. As for the technicalities behind them, and how they work, I can't say I'm particularly interested in dealing with them given the drama that goes with them. I quite suspect how they work varies with the exact sanction. If I ever felt the need to apply such discretionary sanctions, I'd certainly read up on them before hand so I didn't fuck up on procedure, or forget to give prior warnings, or whatever else is involved/required before invoking sanctions.

tl;dr version: Admins who are not interested in running WP:ADMINBOT are not judged for not knowing about bot policy, I'm not interested in dealing with WP:AE stuff and discretionary sanctions, so I don't particularly see the relevance here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, because this is somehow a more contentious answer / interpreted in a very different way than expected, I'm neither against ARBCOM nor DS in general. They're quite needed and often necessary. But when they're needed, it's because all else failed, and only the nuclear option is left. That is the sentiment I wanted to convey in that answer, not that I have a disdain for ARBCOM/DS or those doing enforcement. The only disdain I have is for the drama surrounding situations that required ARBCOM/DS involvement in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion moved to talk page. — xaosflux Talk 02:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Bobherry
9. What is your opinion on WP:BITE. How important is it?
A: My answer is WP:BITE/WP:AGF are very complementary things. This is true in general, regardless of experience level. Sometimes people fuck up, sometimes they just don't know better because they've never had to deal with something before, and save in case of obvious WP:NOTHERE, I've turned around a couple of people / pointed them towards good/better practices. It's a very satisfying thing to teach someone the ropes. As a matter of fact, I'll be running an edit-a-thon in about two weeks, and one of the things (sadly) I'll have to go over with them is "What to do if you get 'trouble'" kinda thing (trouble being quite general, ranging from getting blocked, getting templated, having their contributions reverted, etc...). I don't know what's the current status with new page patrols, but it's been a while since I saw bad faith towards newcomers that were more common [at least from my recollection] around 2012-2014. Even this RfA, while it's not going really in the direction I'm hoping for, has been a lot less toxic than I thought it would be. So good job community? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional question from Ecstatic Electrical
10. This is sort of a follow-up to question #9. How would you respond to this personal essay of mine as a normal user? How would you respond to it as an admin, if your response would be different? —Ecstatic Electrical, 20:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
A: As far as I'm concerned, I feel we're in general too tolerant of obvious vandals, and not tolerant enough of true newbie mistakes. For the last part it's not a lack of tolerance in terms of actions. The community seems to have nailed down an appropriate level of newbie-friendliness in the past few years, at least in the sense that I see more people informing before warning, and that's in general good. But I feel that the information/warning/welcoming templates are... both too wordy before getting to the actual point, and also very impersonal. Those make the newcomer feel greeted by machines, rather than by editors.

As for the substance of the essay, I don't particular see a point in warning "Hey Mr/Ms Vandal, you shouldn't put BOB IS A POOPYHEAD in articles". And while someone can accidentally page blank something once or twice, but if they've done it 20 times in the last 2 minutes, then they obviously need to be stopped/blocked until they give a sign that they are WP:HERE, rather than WP:NOTHERE. But I agree with the general sentiment that you should be careful before jumping to conclusions.

As for socks, I have no opinion on this except indef block all the confirmed ones, and there's no point in pretending obvious socks aren't socks. This is mostly a hypothetical for me, since I never saw anything I'd call obvious sockpuppetry, or at least nothing I can distinguish from meatpuppetry. So in short, WP:AGF yes, but WP:NOTSUICIDE too. Socks are complete drains of community resources, and create bad faith in the community, making the environment most hostile.

As an admin, my opinion of this wouldn't change one bit, be patient with newcomers, first explain, if that doesn't work warn, and if that doesn't work block. Concerning socks, I've have both little experience and little interests in dealing with them. As far as what I'd do if I found/suspected someone of being a sock is the same thing I've done in the past: Bring it to WP:SPI and let people familiar with socks deal with it. That's in general what I'd do in any area I'm not interested in dealing/not familiar with. We've got plenty of experienced admins who know how shit works in those areas, let them deal with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Irondome
11. Candidate, are you open to Admin recall? If so, what parameters would you set in your own hypothetical recall? Please share your thoughts with the community on WP:ADMINACCT with regard to your recall, if you were open to it. Irondome (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
A. As far as I'm concerned, a simple RFC with consensus I'm not fit for tools is sufficient. But try as I might, I can't really fathom any use of the tools / administrative actions I'd ever take that would send people in an uproar. If I db-move something to the wrong location / against what I thought was consensus, it's a rather trivial thing to move it back. As I see it, WP:REFUND pretty much applies [or ought to apply] to any unilateral admin actions taken with respect to content, otherwise admins and editors aren't on equal footing (WP:VESTED). Concerning the specific proposal mentionned here, I can still comment on it tomorrow if you want. It's getting quite late here, and I've got a long day at work tomorrow, with lots of marking, teaching, and getting ready to lead an edit-a-thon in two weeks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Very clear net positive, and someone who we want to have the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Very easy support: fully qualified and trustworthy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support Headbomb is a solid candidate, who has a serious amount of breadth in not only experience, but knowledge as well. They're a little light on the counter-vandalism side but this is heavily complimented by their content contributions. Headbomb has not only been here a long time, they've also been here a long time and racked up enough contributions to make wikichecker break -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Disappointing answers to questions (namely Q8) - that on its own rarely makes me withdraw a support, but with the evidence brought forward in the oppose section its unfortunately a little too much -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support. (edit conflict × 3) I've had a look over the user's recent history and nothing immediately stands out as being a problem. For starters, they've got a clean block log and a nice pie chart with just over 64% of their edits being to mainspace. Their AfD votes, whilst somewhat sparse, typically coincide with the result. The sparsity of their votes shouldn't be an issue as they haven't declared an interest in working in that area. Having a look at the pages created by the user might give pause to some people given the amount of recent deletions, but these have just been redirects (R from ISO 4) to pages that weren't made by the user, so there are no problems there either. The only problem I'm seeing is that they've expressed interest in working at RFPP, but most of their edits there are from years back, with only 8 being from this year. I don't think that'll be too much of an issue though, because this user will be a net positive. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Following the answer to Q8. I could've let the other issues slide, but that bombshell of an answer (specifically the the first sentence) is not an acceptable response from a candidate. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support - I don't see any problems ahead, and several benefits. Has experience in areas we need -- Longhair\talk 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Withdrawing support after responses to questions asked here shows this admin could be a little hot headed under pressure. -- Longhair\talk 03:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I hate this dumb cliche, but I actually did think you were an admin already. I was very confused when I saw this :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'm really surprised at how this has developed since I last looked, but I should really stop being surprised at some of the stuff people post at RfA. I am still in support, and I think it is very weird - like, I can't say this enough, completely bizarre - to read Headbomb's response to Q8 as being entirely serious and "angry" as opposed to being a bit of ironic overstatement. As one of the people who I guess is supposed to be put off by the tone, I have to emphasize that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to look at the mess that is AE/DS and think "fuck that noise, I'll be over here quietly deleting stuff". Arguably that is the only reasonable response ;) A lot of the current opposition is hugely over-valuing "enforcer" roles and tasks (to be honest, I think this is an unpleasant but growing trend across the project). It's true that Headbomb was not at his best in the philoSOPHIA incident, but neither was anyone else, and I like admin candidates to have been in a few scraps. Builds character and all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry for the multi-post, and then making it worse by posting with my alt, but I wanted to add to this that I thought Headbomb's approach dealing with issues surrounding the Magioladitis case was very good, and much more indicative of how he'd go about dealing with things as an admin than the other disputes that have been cited here. Opabinia externa (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Easy choice for an admin candidate! Best of luck with the tools. Minima© (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support (edit conflict × 2)This candidate actually has created some articles and done some good content work, which is a good sign. I am dubious about Politcal Anal. and some other redirects since deleted, however articles such as Bouncing ball more than make up for that. The candidate has the template editor userright and clearly has used it, having created over 300 templates - IMO this is a good sign of trustworthiness as had Headbomb really wanted to break something, the opportunity to do mass template vandalism with automated tools has been present for a while :P In general, this candidate's technical bot and template experience would be of great use to Wikipedia. - In short the admins would benefit from having Headbomb in their group. Dysklyver 08:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support. First class editor, lots of experience in needed areas of admin activity. Every reason to expect the candidate would be a better contributor WITH the toolset. BusterD (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Support withdrawn after observing how the candidate operates under the relatively subdued pressure of RFA. It gets worse out there when you're holding a mop. BusterD (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Suport--Editor par excellence.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, your answer to Q8 swayed me!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Yeah alright. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. I see no problems. Yintan  09:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support per Anarchyte. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Regretfully, I am withdrawing my support because of the answer to quesiton 8 above. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support Contrary to what Anarchyte says above, with 26 reasonably discussed !votes in this year's Afds, Headbomb is quite capable in the Afd space too. Obviously, apart from their welcome contributions in other administrative areas. Lourdes 10:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'm sorry Headbomb. In my tenure here, I don't recall withdrawing support after having provided it. Your increasingly aggressive outburst painting arbcom+administrators in a tainted tone, as you have done in Que 8, is not acceptable to me. You're a great editor and there is no doubt I would love to work with you on improving articles. But I would request and suggest that you become less antagonistic towards administrators in general. I'm sure all it would take from you is a properly drafted apologetic withdrawal statement and perhaps a year of calm editing to come back here. Sorry again Headbomb. My apologies to Ritchie333 too here. Lourdes 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Striking my counter; I'm highly appreciative of the effort that Headbomb has taken to clarify his response and why it may have been misconstrued. Lourdes 14:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support. Incredibly experienced in niche areas where we have poor administrator coverage. I've worked closely with Headbomb in BAG-related areas, and he would be an asset to the project as an admin. No reservations whatsoever. ~ Rob13Talk 11:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support Genuinely thought this user was already an admin. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 11:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  11. Support Long Term user well versed in policy has been around since May 2006 and had his last RFA in 2009.Clear Netpositive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  12. Support Always thoughtful, calm and pretty patient. Also well informed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC).
    I don't mean to badger, but would you consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article an example of "Always thoughtful, calm and pretty patient"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC) (Seems pretty moot now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC))
  13. Support. Net positive (great bot work, for example), but I would advise starting slowly and taking a step back in order to insert more calm into certain disputes. #Kusma (t·c) 13:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  14. Support Per nom.Mrmei 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  15. Support Per nom. Net positive user. I'd say the few drawbacks listed in the oppose section are far outweighed by the rest of his experience and work. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  16. Support Per nom. Despite the criticism am happy to support this nomination. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 16:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  17. Support - WP:NETPOSITIVE. Clueful and active user who would has enough experience to use the sysop tools well. Everyone has bad days, and I'm not concerned with a one-off incident of an angry comment. I can't find anything else like that myself, and I would hope that that one edit doesn't nullify the usefulness of the other 191,747 that the user has here. As to the lack of knowledge regarding discretionary sanctions, that's something they'll be easily able to pick up on the job. Admins are just users with a couple of extra buttons, and I can trust that this user will use those buttons well overall. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  18. Support. I have known Headbomb for many years, mostly through his activity at the Academic Journals Wikiproject. His knowledge of procedures, policy, guidelines, etc is vast and his contributions to the project have been just as vast. While I have disagreed with him occasionally, I find him receptive to arguments. He is very decisive, something several people here apparently interpret as aggressiveness or arrogance, but that is not how I see it. Headbomb as an admin will be a tremendous positive to the project. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC) PS: I was very much with Headbomb at the philoSOPHIA issue, where we were faced with absolutely ridiculous claims of discretionary sanctions, accused of being against women, etc. Subsequent developments fully vindicated Headbomb's stance during that affair. --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support. Firstly I’m going to offer a response to the main reason in the oppose votes. Discretionary sanctions are, as the name suggests, discretionary. Like all editors, admins aren’t perfect and the outcome of the ANI thread mentioned in Q4 appeared just to me per WP:INVOLVED. Admins are expected to be civil per WP:ADMINCOND but I see no reason to suspect that Headbomb will misuse the tools to gain the upper hand in debates. I virtually never swear on-wiki and Headbomb could have worded their complaints at the ANI thread much better but swearing in itself does not constitute personal attacks. We all get angry at times, this was a few months ago and don’t think it is a millstone that needs to be but around Headbomb’s neck. Recognising mistakes and changing is a virtue but so is sticking to your guns.
    Aside from the main point of the oppose votes, the usual requirements check out: 81% of AfD votes and 73% of AfD nominations match the outcome, article CSD stats are difficult to assess but deletion isn’t the only tool in the admin package and Headbomb has a wide range of Wikipedia activities, so there’s a need for the tools.
    DrStrauss talk 18:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I've just seen the answer to Q8 and I'm beginning to reconsider. Not bad enough to oppose though. DrStrauss talk 17:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  19. Support due to the incredible body of work and accolades over the years. Civility is a concern, but those incidents are rare, Headbomb has been dedicated to the site for many years, and I don't get the impression Headbomb would abuse admin status in situations that do come up. Adamtrain (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  20. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88talk 20:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  21. Supported last time, supporting this time. Very competent in the areas he's expressed an interest in working in. Man, I'm glad I don't have to go thru one of these anymore. Not allowed to get mad even once in the 12-24 months before an RFA. Hope it turns around for you.--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  22. I supported last time and am happy to support again. Headbomb is perfectly competent in the areas he wishes to work in and I'm not convinced by the "temperament" concerns. So maybe he's a little grouchy every now and then but unless you're Commander Data without his emotion chip, chances are this is standard of nearly all people - even me. As for all the existing admins with temperament issues, as claimed below...start to work on removing them if they're that concerning. Acalamari 21:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  23. Support very good content creation, bot work, AFD participation. Don't see one dispute as a reason to oppose. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  24. Support. Always happy to see edits from headbomb on my watch list. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  25. Support. And this is "support", not just "moral support". I agree in particular with Randykitty and Floquenbeam. I took a good, hard look at that philoSOPHIA thing, and what I'm seeing is a long-term and generally clueful user get briefly upset and (oh, the horror!) use some curse words, over a dispute in which the ultimate outcome of an RfC was that his position was also the consensus. (Hint: if you see Randykitty on one side of a dispute, that's probably going to be the correct side.) And now, I'm seeing numerous reflexive opposes, because, after all, if somebody sounded angry once and a lot of other editors are opposing at an RfA, well, that's a good reason to oppose. The classic case of a good editor who has been around long enough to have made some enemies and who therefore cannot pass RfA. This is an experienced user who will be a net positive as an administrator, and certainly will not break the wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  26. Support I would have opposed based on this edit and more importantly revert 1 & revert 2, (yes my responses were sub-optimal as well), BUT his subsequent comment & edit demonstrated he can take a step back and take a more measured approach. Find bruce (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  27. Support. Headbomb is a hard worker and is genuinely committed to building a better encyclopedia. I am confident that they will use the tools to make Wikipedia a better resource. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  28. Support This doesn’t seem to be going well so I shall lend my moral support. While I appreciate the concerns, I still believe we would have a net positive. Have always appreciated HB’s tremendous work. Schwede66 23:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    #Support Clearly not going so great so this is really a moral support. I've only looked at Boing's comments below (because, of course, I have a great deal of respect for what Boing says!), but I disagree with him on this. Looking through the interaction on the philosophia mess, I don't see any bad faith editors, just two sides talking past each others. Headbomb, clearly, did not understand the nature of a discretionary sanctions notice (distressingly familiar to me), but that's not so unusual. Personally, I'd give him (and, apparently, he is a him) a pass on that one because the good faith is apparent on both sides of the debate. Sometimes things just don't work out and we shouldn't hold that against anyone. --regentspark (comment) 00:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Withdraw support after reading the response to Q8. Either you actually believe what your wrote or you're so pissed off with the way this RfA is going that you can't restrain yourself. Either way, no way. Boing was right. I was wrong. --regentspark (comment) 01:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  29. Support I have not participated in one of these requests for adminship before so do not know the full criteria of what is required of an administrator, but I support on the basis of a good content creation record. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    #Support Yep. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Moved to oppose because of editor's answer to Q8. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 05:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  30. Support Good content creator. Committed editor. Net positive to project by a wide margin. Also, we desperately need another administrator at BAG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  31. Support – After seeing your answers to the questions I was put off from casting a support, but from what I've seen from you you can keep your cool, and plus, admins don't need to know everything. J947( c ) (m) 01:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  32. Weak Support The two major opposers are patently wrong. Andrew D is out to stir old disputes, of which he was just plain wrong at the DYK and he's continued to mis-characterize the dispute. Boing! is also wrong. SV injected gender politics into a dispute and then gaslighted Headbomb. Then she complained at AE when he became angry about gender-politics being injected. That said, Headbomb is guilty of being easily baited and their temperament is problematic. I'm on a verge of an oppose for that, but I can't join that list which contains a whole lot of "per Boing!" knowing how the issue was twisted. Also, candidates Q8 answer and their own nom's concerns also bother me and I may switch to neutral yet.--v/r - TP 01:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  33. Support I respect the comments of those who take oppose. We have to work with people and people sometimes make mistakes. I believe this user can grow and serve the role of admin well--give them a mop and bucket.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  34. Support As I type this it would appear that this RfA will not pass, but personally I am comfortable with Headbomb using the tools properly. It is clear that nearly everyone respects his contributions and dedication to Wikipedia, and it is also clear that he cares a great deal. Sometimes that may not manifest itself in the best way, and perhaps a delete and rewrite of the first draft or two of a response before hitting the save button might be in order, but I do not get the impression that this poses a risk of him abusing the tools.
    In reading the full context of the dispute (whew!), I am not sure I fault Headbomb for his initial reaction, given that he did not know that any editor could place the tag and was essentially singled out for a notice regarding it. Would it have been infinitely preferable if cooler heads had prevailed, on both sides? Sure. But I don't think it's fair to say "he's not admin material" when there were several other respected administrators who were equally to blame for that situation escalating like it did. And I definitely don't mean to imply that I think those administrators aren't worthy of respect; I absolutely think they are. But that's my point. I don't judge them for that one incident, nor do I believe they should be. So let's give Headbomb the same courtesy. CThomas3 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  35. STRONG SUPPORT –Hell, no! Where is a Voltaire when one needs one the most! I strongly support HB for his standing up publicly (as critisized on talk) against "discretionary" admins' behaviour, in spite of his behaviour involving borderline aggressivity. But where did the wisdom of hurting sticks and bones go? HB as admin will effect more improvement of WP than all these progressive, liberal, urban, civil, neutral, correct, ... admins achieve, threatening with sanctions for opposing their beadles in discussion, simply when their pertinent setting in the discussion at hand is made public, or who close a thread with TWO entries, when asked about some possible glitch, ... This won't change the majority, nor the ruling class. Purgy (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  36. Support In all honesty, I have not looked deeply enough into the shitshow raised in Q4 and numerous opposes to form my own opinion on the bottom of that matter. The point is that I do not care much if the worst I could find is the candidate being uncivil at the end of a long and tedious ANI thread, and digging in thereafter. Not only does the candidate intend to work in areas where the risk of controversy is minimal, but I also have the feeling (based on seeing them around) it will be so even after a couple of months of activity, and I therefore assign a low priority on the temperamental score. I will readily admit it is a gamble (even if as votes look, I am not going to pay the margin call); maybe a year and ten ArbCom cases later, the opposers will have won "I told you so" rights. But I do not see a realistic scenario of tool abuse and a WP:NETPOSITIVE seems virtually certain. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Also, on the off chance this goes to 'crat chat: I give absolutely no weight whatsoever to opposes based on Q8. I do not see that answer as sniping against ArbCom, but rather as a "I do not know and do not care" thing; I do not think knowledge of DS is needed in someone who will not enforce them; and I certainly do not think formal language is required per civility guidelines. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  37. Support. Does excellent work on science articles and is prepared to take a stand against cyber bullying. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC).
    Support Seem him around, seems to be a bit of a nippy sweety but knows his way around WP, and gets the job done. Hard worker who stands up to the occasional bolshie administrator. Well worth supporting him as as admin, and would do again in any future vote. scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Have to change my vote and withdraw my support, after seeing question 8. Atrocious answer. There is a difference between being nippy and being nihilistic. scope_creep (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  38. Support - I've crossed swords with Headbomb. Even had major differences of opinion with him on certain issues. But, he's got around the same number of edits as I have, so should know what he's doing by now. An experienced editor with a clean block log should be able to be trusted with the tools. I have faith that this is the case here. Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  39. Support (although I realize the negative outcome of the RfA is clear). I disagreed with the candidate's position and even more strongly with his approach on the philoSOPHIA issue. Frankly, the whole issue was not worth the severe disharmony it created and he should have just let it go. However, I do not believe this was typical of the candidate's approach to editing or would be typical of how he would acts as an administrator, in part because his interests are principally in unrelated fields. As for Q8, editors who have gone a decade without having to deal with the complexities of the discretionary-sanctions rule-sets are more to be envied than censured. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  40. Support per WP:ROPE (yes, I know it's not quite the same, but I like the comparison anyway). I'm sure it doesn't matter at this point, but let me use my first ever vote to throw in some moral support at least. And frankly, I do understand (some of) the opposition, but some of that opposition (particularly from active admins) has been pretty disgusting. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  41. Support - This nomination has gone south based on the frank and accurate answer to question 8, it would seem. It's only the truth that hurts. Adequate tenure, massive contributions, clean block log, limited agenda for the tools with a reasonable rationale, no worries. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  42. Support, primarily per Carrite, Mjroots, and NYB. Kablammo (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  43. Support: per NYB, Carrite, Mjroots etc. Maybe a little too honest...but I like that!! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  44. Support per the points Carrite lists. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  45. Support more admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  46. Support WP:NETPOSITIVE PiGuy3 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  47. Support Per the comments of Carrite (talk and Newyorkbrad (talk. In addition, the candidate appears to be a poor politician. Good. Admins are human, and a squabble over the philoSOPHIA debacle (No one comes out looking good from that) and a painfully honest answer to Q8 should not sink this RfA. Have courage community, and allow those who do not necessarily toe the line to be given a chance. The candidate actually has an excellent record of improving WP and a clear rationale for the use of the tools. I see no evidence of tool misuse. I believe the candidate will be radically different in attitude when he is promoted. I have no doubt this RfA will go to a crat chat. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself colleagues. Irondome (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  48. Strong support. I don't want or expect other admins to be just like me and take only positions I would take. I do want and expect them to know what they're about and manifest internal consistency while in pursuit of their goals and defending their positions. Headbomb is a rational thinker with the full range of complex adult communication skills who doesn't get his panties in a twist if someone doesn't think his pet projects are important, or even "really interesting" (cf. 01:41, 6 June 2017 UTC post in another discussion which has been been mentioned nearly twenty times so far on this page, and yes, if you were stung by panties in a twist it probably meant you), and he isn't easy to push around. What do you call the thing where mobs with flaming torches drag someone through the street in the middle of the night while beating them and inviting onlookers to pelt them with garbage and stones and bricks? Whatever it's called, it's a little worse than being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, and a few opposers here seem determined to do both (figuratively speaking, of course). I like this guy, I like his answers to the questions, he knows the difference between involved and uninvolved (as further discussed here), and I'd trust him with the full toolbox. – Athaenara 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  49. Support —it seems like the only reason why people are against him is the answer to a few of his questions and previous actions, which seem totally fine to me. NikolaiHo☎️ 04:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  50. Support Seems like a decent fellow to me! I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  51. Support Per NYB.AlasdairEdits (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  52. Support not despite but because of the answer to Q8, since it's entirely correct. Gimme someone that actually knows the policies any day, especially if they're not looking for WP:AC/DS power to club people with. The overall impression I get from Headbomb (with whom I do not always agree) is solid; I'm not going to freak out because the candidate used a "swear word" in one dramaboard thread. No one has rainbows shooting out their ears while they ride around on a unicorn, 24/7. That ANI thing looked like a very frustrating situation (I 100% sympathize, having had similar run-ins with the other party in that dispute, going back years – it never gets any better with that one). Anyway, the candidate has plenty of clue, knows how the community works, and generally exercises good judgement. I would rather have an experienced all-arounder who doesn't suffer foolishness and system-gaming lightly, than yet another candidate in the vein of "I've been here 10 months, on my best behavior and avoiding all controversy until I get that admin hat to add to my collection, meanwhile all I do is template people and not work on content".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  53. Support per User:SMcCandlish. Antrocent (♫♬) 16:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support per nominator. Metmeganslay (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Metmeganslay (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Account blocked as sockpuppet. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  54. Support Moved here from Oppose. Initially I opposed based on a (flawed) perception. Headbomb seemed a little too aggressive, a little too flippant, a little too arrogant. But having had my eyes opened a little wider, I base my support now on this: Is there a need for the tools? Yes (see nom, Q1) Is he likely to misuse the tools? No. Is he likely to break the wiki? No. Neil S. Walker ([email protected]) 00:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  55. Support. Headbomb seems to be a reasonable and productive editor, and also an actual human being. It seems that often being too good to be true is a requirement for adminship. This limits it to people with a narrow set of attitudes and personalities, as well as determined power-seekers. I also think discretionary sanctions have played a part in transforming the role of sysop from janitor to politician-policeman, and I respect Headbomb's wish to not be involved in that. —Guanaco 01:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  56. Support I have been thinking about this for a while and believe this is the correct place for me to be. RFA is a very political place. There is nothing wrong with playing politician, but you don't have to be one to be a decent admin. It is actually quite refreshing to see one were a nominee answers the questions with brutal honesty. Carrite sums up perfectly why Headbomb should get the tools. They are a bit too aggressive and probably impulsive, but not enough to convince me that they will abuse the tools (they have a pretty low threshold for admin abuse it seems). AIRcorn (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support of the user described in Ritchie333's nomination. HOWEVER-- nominee clearly has anger issues. Nominee needs to deal with this. I'm talking about the whole self-awareness/mindfulness/cleansing breaths/recentering concept. Step back and try again. Never edit in anger; no good ever comes of it. I need the nominee to commit to fixing this problem. In the words of Boing, " to address it and allay my fear of any repetition". The edit warring is very concerning even if the nominee was technically right in their reasoning for the edit. There are better ways to deal with a content dispute. The one revert rule is a good way to keep from being drawn in to an edit war. Also, placing a citation needed template is preferable to outright removal of contents. If that is also unacceptable to the other editors, remember "bold, revert, discuss". Make your case on the talk page. If you feel strongly enough, you can obtain a 3rd opinion or seek consensus via RFC. Even by the"lax" pre 2008 RFA standards, edit warring was seen as prima facie evidence of unsuitability for the tools. The concern was that an editor who edit warred would also wheel war. I need the nominee to commit to 1RR and a clearer understanding of resolving disputes. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    I will not commit to that, no. I will however commit, as I consistently have in my 10+ years here, to WP:3RR and every other policy we have out there (including WP:IAR). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for being so honest. Won't pile on in opposition, but that was not the answer I needed. In fact, you just proved me a fool for having supported. I've been here 10 years as well, and remember when the concerns I raised would fail an RFA, even by those bygone standards. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    No biggie. I'd rather not have supports based on misconceptions on what I would or would not commit to. There's already plenty of that in the oppose section, we don't need those in the support section as well. My reply to L3X1 in N11 below may be of interest to you, however.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  57. Support L3X1 (distænt write) 20:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  58. Would be helpful as an admin. Nice tenure. feminist 03:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  59. SupportFull RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 05:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  60. Support Good content creation work. Probably inexperienced with contentious areas. But I think they can learn on the job. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  61. support ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  62. Support - Clean block log maintained for so many years. I believe Headbomb will not misuse his tools. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  63. Support It is important that the personalities of those contributing to and protecting this project are wide-ranging. Headbomb is clearly an intelligent, passionate and long-term supporter of the project and as such would be a great asset to its admin corps. Poltair (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  64. Support Headbomb is the right editor for the job. The opposers (with their Q4 and Q8 problems) have convinced me that this candidate deserves my support. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  65. Support. Per Carrite & others, despite the candidate's clean block record. Break the unfortunate mold. --IHTS (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  66. Support. Qualified candidate and finally someone with a proper attitude against shallow minority victimism. The position he's applying to is Wikipedia Administrator, not Disney princess; Vote accordingly. Fbergo (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  67. Support I've been on the fence over this one but after some thought, I'm supporting. At this point, yes I can do basic math, I realize that my support is largely moral but I'm here all the same. Regards the oppse votes; I think some of them raise legitimate concerns. HB could have done a better job with a couple of the questions. But I also think that some this is because they have been around for a while, they have an actual record and it includes being involved in the occasional contretemps. All things said I think the risk of their blowing up the wiki is relatively low and I expect they will be a net positive. That and I think the admin corps needs one or two editors who are not afraid to be blunt when the need is there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  68. Support I see in Headbomb a highly competent editor with exceptional skills in the technical aspects of of running Wikipedia, such as templates and bot operation. They have already proven themselves to have good judgement and the ability to handle the responsibility of administration of these difficult areas. While many admins might have a better sense of diplomacy, few are as competent as Headbomb to judge the technical issues involved in bot administration and template maintenance. We need technically competent admins (in addition to the traditional WikiCop admins) to keep Wikipedia running well. --Mark viking (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  69. Support Per SMcCandlish; although the answer to Q8 is correct, it's not complete: there's also certainly an aspect of discretionary sanctions that admits (speaking as a former arbitrator who proposed or voted for them on multiple occasions) that ArbCom simply can't find and fix all the problems individually. Whatever Headbomb should be opposed for, truth-telling is probably not the right reason. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  70. Support Per LX31 and my comments at neutral; I think this candidate's answer to question 8 is a fine one and, while I find the incident mentioned in question 4 disappointing, I don't think it's typical of the editor and one incident should not be a bar to adminship. GoldenRing (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support. It won't swing this doomed RfA but I think SMcCandlish and Ad Orientem make fair supportive points. Yintan  11:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC) (Struck duplicate vote, but multiple comments are welcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC))
    @Yintan: you have already voted! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  71. Support On the second thought, I think he would be a good admin. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 11:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  72. Support: Good, hardworking editor. Clean block log, content creation good. I looked at some talk page interactions and they seem fine, if somewhat curt at times. The incident mentioned in Q4 is not their highest point, but is not enough to be disqualifying. Net positive, etc. Kingsindian   12:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I didn't like the candidate's approach to the bouncing ball topic. This topic has been around for a long time, as discussed at AfD and DYK. Rather than develop the existing pages, the candidate wrote his own draft in user space and then started nominating earlier work for deletion. When stymied at one page, he then got another page speedily deleted. The candidate justified this action by reference to WP:TNT but that is not deletion policy nor even a guideline. He also seems to be involved in the latest round of drama about Betacommand and I get the impression that he has a similar, high-handed attitude, as noted in the previous RfAs. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    This argument does not really hold up. I didn't see anything done wrong by Headbomb in either of those discussions relating to bouncing ball. He was civil, and making well-reasoned arguments in both. As far as the Betacommand issue, he has left two comments in the current RFC, both of which were simple !votes on different proposals. One of them was very well thought-out, and the other was an unobjectionable Vote per (username). I find no plausible explanation for objecting to his participation there. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    The candidate seems to have been edit-warring with Fram at that RfC: [2]; [3]; [4]. This seems an elementary breach of our behavioural guidelines per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others". Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    There are a number of editors at that RfC who have been basically acting like children; Headbomb ran across one of them but tried to work through the nonsense. Characterizing their behaviour as edit-warring isn't really fair to the situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification, I missed that. Editwarring is indeed a serious concern. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: I was really hoping to be able to switch from Neutral to Support, but Headbomb's dismissal of my Q4 and refusal to address his own part in that unfortunate incident (while apparently still blaming it entirely on admin abuse) is arrogant (and arrogance was one of the Oppose reasons given in the previous RfA). WP:ADMINACCT is a very important part of being an admin, as is accepting and responding to criticism, and if Headbomb won't even answer questions about recent non-admin actions here at his RfA, then I absolutely can not support him for admin. Headbomb's work here has been excellent, but he is, unfortunately, still temperamentally unsuited for adminship, in my opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    And, unfortunately, this "copy edit" makes things worse by continuing with his insistence that placing a DS notice is an admin action and therefore admin abuse - that was all explained clearly at the ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    There's no need for that specific criticism now that things have moved on a little, so I'll just leave it that I'm disappointed in the outcome at Q4. I was very much open to being persuaded that it was not going to be a future concern and that I could switch to Support, but it was not to be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I wasn't planning to say any more here (partly because I don't want to look like I'm badgering), but I must make a comment after seeing the latest few supports and feeling there might be some misunderstanding. Folks are saying that it's perfectly understandable that someone can have an angry episode now and then and it is a forgiveable failing, and I wholeheartedy agree!

      That's not my issue at all, my issue is with the way Headbomb responded to my question about it. Had I seen something like "Yes, that was bad, I really shouldn't have reacted that way", I'd probably be in the Support section now. It's the refusal to face up to it that's the problem - instead we saw a doubling down by just digging his heels in, still blaming everyone else for it, and repeating his unfounded accusations. That lack of self-awareness and steadfast refusal to consider his own failings in that incident are what make me believe that Headbomb does not have the temperament for admin - not the initial episode itself.

      Anyway, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, jusy trying to clarify my oppose rationale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

    I, in turn, don't want to sound like I'm badgering the opposes, but I feel a need to reply. I very much respect what you are saying here, but I think that Headbomb was actually right on the merits of the argument, and you are asking him to say that he was wrong when he wasn't. Technically, he was wrong about it being the use of admin tools, but that's a technicality. On the larger picture, he had good reason to feel mistreated. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Absolutely not, no, I'm not suggesting he was wrong about the content at all - the consensus was with him, so by definition he was right. What was wrong was the repeated accusations of admin abuse and breach of WP:INVOLVED (continued to this very RFA!) when there were no admin actions taken by anyone in the dispute, and his uncivil outburst at AN and his refusal to address it and allay my fear of any repetition. It's all about convincing me he'll abide by WP:ADMINACCT, that he will be open to criticism if given a mop, and that he will back down in things he's wrong about - and I am not convinced. Anyway, I just wanted to explain myself a little better than I had previously, so thanks for listening. Time for bed... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Per Boing! said Zebedee, on the refusal in Q4 to comment on any potential rooms for improvement in terms of civil discussion in a contentious situation, in addition to the observations I have made in separate sections below. I am getting the impression from Q3 that as long as one "stick to the issue" in a dispute, persistent aggressive and accusatory tone is perfectly acceptable, which in my opinion does not reflect well on collegial working style. I think in any content disputes, it's always better to not take other editors personally and move forward when necessary, and I am uncomfortable with the continued implication toward presumably SlimVirgin based on reading the recent AN/I discussion. Alex ShihTalk 12:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    To expand on my thoughts in regards to Q3: The answer includes a red link to WP:AEE, as the page has been moved to User:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors. While I also disagree with having a group page like this, there is absolutely no need to vilify a group of longtime editors, many of them are still active today. Alex ShihTalk 12:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Too be clear, my objections to the AEE starts and ends with the existence of the AEE (much like WP:ESPERANZA, which was before my time), as I'm entirely against dividing editors into classes of people with "special rights" during dispute resolution. I cast zero aspersions against any editors who would have been part of the AEE, had it been allowed to exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Boing!sZ. WP:ADMINACCT is absolutely fundamental, and a failure to understand something as basic as discretionary sanctions- let alone getting into a lava over it- does not bode well, unfortunately. I do, of course, look forward to being proved wrong. — fortunavelut luna 12:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'm surprised you see discretionary sanctions as basic. I certainly didn't understand them before becoming an admin. The real question to me is whether Headbomb expects to work in the DS area. If yes, I'd switch to oppose for obvious reasons. If no, do we really require intricate knowledge of one of the most dramatic areas on the site to become an admin? I'm actually somewhat encouraged when I see a candidate with no experience in that area. ~ Rob13Talk 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    @BU Rob13: I think the answer to Q.8 probably suffices :) — fortunavelut luna 12:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The whole philoSOPHIA thing was a case of HB being entirely too aggressive and staking out a position that wasn't well supported (not on the inclusion or not of the list but of the "admin abuse" complaint to ANI) and then when others tried to point out to him that the situation wasn't quite what he thought, he continued to hold to his original position. This sort of behavior isn't good in an admin. And this is only one example of his dig-in-and-don't-budge behavior. I'll also note that in the ANI over this issue, even after being told that their approach was disturbing to the other editor in the dispute, they continued the same approach (and in some ways, doubled down on the aggressive behavior). This is fine for an editor, but if you're going to be an admin, you're going to need to be a bit more willing to reconsider things or change your approach to get better results. I have no other issues with the candidate at the moment, so I consider this a slight oppose, but the demeanor issues concern me. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per the concerns rasied by Boing! Every admin must act in a civil matter. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Boing's concern. We have enough abusive administrators as it is. Admins who can't control their temper are a serious issue. We absolutely don't need any more, and this user appears to be headed down that path based on his behavior in the June discussion and his handling of Q4. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. The philoSOPHIA dispute is a big mess with bad behavior on both sides. Headbomb may have even been in the right, but the issue here is the way that Headbomb chose to respond to the situation. Being an administrator requires keeping a cool head and remaining courteous even when others around you are acting like imbeciles. If it was not for this behavioral issue, I would easily be able to support—as it is, this is too recent to ignore. Malinaccier (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Strong oppose per the issues raised in question 4. Even if you're in the right, "This is utter fucking horseshit" is not an appropriate thing to say, and Headbomb has shown severe incivility in that ANI thread. Their defensiveness continues in their response to question 4, where they push the blame onto other parties in their initial response, and later say "sure maybe I could have handled that with more tact" – that is not a proper apology or admission of guilt. This is such a recent event, and honestly I don't know whether someone with such a bad temper should be editing here at all, let alone given sysop tools. I think rudeness and bad tempers are one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia, and it drives away so many editors from the site, along with making lots of users who do stay feel like crap. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    To say something like I don't know whether someone with such a bad temper should be editing here at all - to be that casually dismissive of a long-term and productive volunteer who has offered to take on an often unpleasant and tedious task - sure is a funny way of showing how concerned you are about making users feel like crap. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Can't really dismiss the last RfA bids when the behavior noted from them is still prevailing in their activity today. The issues raised in Q4 give me doubts whether this user will hold himself accountable, and we already have quite a few admins who fail to do this. So, no thank you but I appreciate your prolific content work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose becuase of how he handled Q4. Remember WP:BITE Wikipedias main problem. Bobherry Talk Edits 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Strong Oppose per Boing!sZ, WP:ADMINACCT. The very recent behaviour shown by HB at [5] demonstrates that HB is temperamentally unsuited for adminship. Neil S. Walker ([email protected]) 16:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    In light of the response to Q8 I have amended my !vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose". Neil S. Walker ([email protected]) 22:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Re-evaluating. Neil S. Walker ([email protected]) 00:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  12. I don't hold it against anyone that they don't understand/dare to touch the discretionary sanctions systems. However, it seems like Headbomb has some difficulty handling disagreements judging by Q4 and the attitude on the "is this admin abuse?" question aspect of the philoSOPHIA dispute (as expressed in the ARCA page and the ANI topic linked here), both in terms of staying calm and in terms of conceding arguments that you can't win. Either difficulty is a problem even in regular editors, and I worry that if it happens again after Headbomb becomes an admin it will result in an Arb case and accompanying "abusive admin" drama - such has happened many times in the past. I emphasize that I am only commenting on the attitude about the "is this admin abuse?" question and I don't find the problem to be insurmountable but it needs to be actioned on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Q4 and general incivility toward other users. Choard1895 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Per Boing!. I'm not satisfied after reading Q4 and the whole philoSOPHIA dispute. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - per the reasons already given, ie Q4. It's nothing personal, surely, because I have a hard time keeping my tact sometimes as well. But Admins should be held to a higher standard. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - as above - a step in the right direction from previous RFAs, but too many concerns still linger I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 17:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  17. Per Q4. Sorry, HB. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    The answer to Q8, even after the attempted correction, makes this an even stronger oppose. Very surprising to see that in an RfA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  18. Oppose as Boing!sz said above. Controlling temperament and remaining civil is essential for administrators. Hummerrocket (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Boing!, Bilorv, and TheGracefulSlick. Dr. K. 19:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee, Alex Shih, Ealdgyth, et al. On the answers to Q4, consider the meta-issue that these are answers on an RfA, and yet there is apparently no self-awareness that he is responding in a way that digs a deeper hole. Relitigating the dispute takes precedence over demonstrating the demeanor expected of an admin. Per the nom, he is clearly a prolific editor, with many substantive, exceptionally high-quality contributions. Unfortunately I do not see the right temperament for an Admin. I know I'm taking the following quote out of its original context, but I suggest he should consider this fragment from his answer to Q3: "I'd rather keep my voice as an editor, than get involved as an admin." -- Gpc62 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I hardly ever oppose RFAs - I think this may be the first time, actually - but Q4 kills it for me, for the many reasons outlined above. Yunshui  21:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. He is far too aggressive. I'm surprised to see this RfA so soon after the philoSOPHIA issue and that Headbomb continues to misinterpret it. He arrived at that article—about a small feminist philosophy journal—while using the term "special snowflake" in the AfD, [6] and reverted six times against three editors to remove the advisory board. [7][8][9][10][11][12] I considered reporting it to WP:AN/EW, but because it was Headbomb, I anticipated an explosion, so instead I gave him a DS alert, thinking (wrongly) that he wouldn't take that so personally. I even apologized for having to use the template. [13] That I felt I had to tip-toe around him and couldn't report the edit warring is the core of the problem. And the explosion happened anyway. It's also a concern that he still seems to believe that involved editors can't issue DS alerts (which are just that: alerts). SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per SarahSV and the points she listed. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 22:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per the response to Q8. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    It's apparently necessary for me to expand. Being in a dispute on ANI a few months ago didn't bother me. The fact that, after that dispute, he didn't appear to understand how Discretionary Sanctions worked did. During this RfA, this has been a concern raised by multiple editors. Rather than learn the rules or give a brief, even-tempered response ("they allow ECP protection of pages and make it easier for admins to block users"), he proudly proclaimed his ignorance. I hoped he would give a response that would have allowed me to ignore Q4 entirely and support his candidacy, but that did not happen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Having useful skills and using them actively and well does not automatically qualify one for the heavy responsibility of adminship. Temperament is at least 65% of the qualification in my opinion, and Headbomb, as useful and helpful as his contributions are, does not seem to have it. He also does not seem to want to develop it, given some of his statements in Q3, Q4, Q8 and this recent conversation on his talk page. That's fine, not all Wikipedians need to avoid bluntness and aggression and short-temperedness – but administrators do. Tools and skills can be learned, but temperament usually cannot be learned (unless one actively wants to embrace a new temperament). Temperament suitable to adminship needs to be demonstrated prior to becoming an admin. Softlavender (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per Boing! - Sure all admins lose their shit at times that's understandable but IMHO this editor has a serious civility, That aside Q4 and Q8 are not what I want to hear from an RFA candidate and as such is the final nail in the coffin for me. –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  27. Oppose: Headbomb does indeed provide very valuable contributions to the project - and works hard at it. I’ll just reiterate some words used in a previous RfA: your responses to editors regarding the MOSNUM dispute were rather abrupt and dismissive; bossy, rules-mongering; terse and cold; arrogant and brusque; very arrogant attitude - it seems to be a recurring theme. This very accurate oppose statement by Ched in RfA#3 sums the candidate up well, while beginning with: ' excellent editor, and a tremendous asset to the project...' , and if I were here assessing an editor whose work I was not aware of, my vote would be almost identical, including, as I have also witnessed on other occasions, his tendentious disparaging remarks about Britain, which are not made in a forgivable humorous way. I can understand Sarah's comments, I've been avoiding Headbomb ever since the British issue some 7 or 8 years ago. I’m known for not mincing my words when the occasion demands, but there’s a difference between being pithy, and being brash - Headbomb's issues are probably due to spontaneity and a lack of diplomacy, but are character traits that are not conducive to adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Addendum: I am frankly apalled by the answer to Q8, not only by the content, but also by the language used. I feel sorry for Ritchie333, who nominated in good faith but who has finally had to tell him to shut up. Ritch doesn't usually err with his RfA nominations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  28. Oppose unfortunately, based on the answer to question 8, I am moving down here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  29. Oppose based in part on Q4 (as mentioned above, so I won't rehash) and the overwhelming impression that they simply do not have the demeanor for the job. I would be afraid to put the tools in their hands, frankly. Not for the 99% of the time they would use it right, but for the 1% when they lose their cool. This doesn't diminish their contributions as an editor, which are many and appreciated. Being a good editor (and sometimes, advocate) isn't the same as being a useful admin. Dennis Brown - 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  30. Oppose - I've been back and forth on this RfA weighing all the comments and my own research of the candidate. Unfortunately, I just cannot support a candidate who would answer question #8 the way this candidate has. Add to that the very valid concerns presented above from Sarah, Ealdgyth and Boing! and I must oppose. -- Dane talk 01:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  31. Oppose I was going to wait a bit longer before commenting, but the answer to Question 8 brings me to a quick oppose. The candidate doesn't appear to have taken the question seriously, and WP:ACDS/WP:AE is serious stuff. I can excuse someone who's not interested in working in this area (And honestly, I'm not interested in working in this area either); I can't excuse "rain down holy fire" and "without remorse", even if it was intended as a joke. No... Not appropriate for RFA as much as it is inappropriate at a funeral. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    I don't dispute that ACDS/AE is "serious stuff", I dispute the premise that I should spent 2-4 hours reading walls of text that will have no relevance to my adminship, should I get the bit. I was ask of that my perception of what ACDS/AE is, and that's what my experience with these processes have been. If that's not what they are, so what? The consequences of me being wrong about what ACDS is vs what actually is, assuming DS are something other than the highest possible "don't do it, or else" of Wikipedia, is about the same as Admin #234 not knowing the intricacies of WP:COSMETICBOT when all they want to do is deal with new page patrols. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  32. Oppose I'm sorry but Q4 is a deal breaker for me. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Reiterating oppose in view of Headbomb's comments on what he would've done differently if he could go back in time [14]. This kind of reaction does not help, and if SlimVirgin had the same temperament there'd still be drama. I'm sorry, but I still cannot support. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  33. Strong oppose This is not a candidate who will bring any form of positivity to the table. Between incivility and a failure to accept negative comments, giving the tools would be a detriment to wiki.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 02:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  34. Oppose - While I am one who can appreciate his work as a BAG, the answers to questions 4 and 8 caused a verbal "yikes" response from me. Not good. Nihlus 04:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  35. Weak Oppose - Editor has lots of WP:CLUE and has contributed mightily at this project. However, not every great editor should be an admin. (And not every good admin is a great editor, for what that's worth, although the correlation is high.) I sense that most the time they'd be a great admin, but it does appear that they may be "easily baited" as pointed out in the support section, and not just on a one-time basis. Not so much that it interferes with regular editing, but being an admin puts one in situations more often that result in conflict. I'm truly, very sorry to land here because of my respect for the candidate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  36. Oppose question 8 is horrifying. --Rschen7754 05:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  37. Oppose not seeing the right attitude here for Adminship. Civility is a must, and I have concerns that this user won't be able to keep a cool head and will become that which he despises most (a rogue admin). A great editor, but not everyone is cut out to be an admin I think (no offence meant). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. I didn't want to see myself in this section, but following Q8, I really can't support (see my support !vote for more info). Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  39. Oppose per responses to Q4 and Q8. Sorry for landing up here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  40. I don't like to oppose a well established useful editor, but admins need more tact and civility. Q4 is about matters too recent to hope they'd not recur. ϢereSpielChequers 06:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  41. Oppose I see a lot of good stuff and some not so good stuff. Unfortunately I end up in the oppose column. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  42. Strong Oppose - answer to Q8 really concerns me, and the interaction with BSZ definitely shows Headbomb's true colours. I'd be seriously uncomfortable with him becoming an administrator. Patient Zerotalk 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  43. Oppose, I really wanted to support because we need more admins that are willing to call out groupthink and take unpopular stances when required. But the philoSOPHIA thing is a dealbreaker for me. The problem is not so much the position that was taken, as much as it is the extremely aggressive way that the argument was prosecuted. I don't want to see admins taking that sort of position, sorry. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC).
  44. Oppose Per others, answer to Q8 is the deal breaker for me. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  45. Oppose - frankly, this project doesn't need men in positions of authority who think they can dictate that a dispute with identified women editors on an article about a feminist journal is not a gender issue. Headbomb's attitude in the philoSOPHIA thing is borderline abusive, and his unironic complaint of "abuse of power" is stunningly clueless. I'm not really satisfied with the answer to my Q7, it's fair but wishy-washy ("let someone else deal with it"). Answer to Q8 is a horror show. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    You, uh, should have started from your third sentence. Ivanvector, the dispute was over identifying the members of a board contrary to the essay of WP:JWG. I don't think the word gender was ever even mentioned at the article talk. If you're going to point to an issue, it ought to be the edit-warring at the article and attitude at AN/I. And, if you missed it, all involved parties tried to impose their preferences on the article. This would mean that everybody was dictating the dispute. Nobody had clean hands there. Additionally, philoSOPHIA's board consists of both males (one to be precise) and females. To reframe this from a different perspect: it's like a Jewish admin and a German editor having a dispute over some article content on The Daily Stormer (for example). You don't immediately assume that the German editor is a holocaust denying anti-semite. Especially if the dispute has nothing to do with Jews, Germans, or Anti-semitism. That shows incredible ABF. This, specifically this, is why I opposed your candidacy for adminship. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    As someone who was very much involved in the philoSOPHIA debacle, I completely agree with what Mr rnddude says. One moment you're involved in a technical dispute about whether or not the editorial board of a journal should be listed in full, then next thing you know you get a warning template on your talk page that tells you you're involved in a gender-related situation and warning me that bans and blocks are possible. My temperament is different from Headbomb's, so my reaction was simply this. Nevertheless, I must admit that I had smoke coming out of my ears (and that doesn't happen very often). Up till that point, nothing in that discussion had even touched upon anything gender-related. The only reason I didn't participate in the subsequent ANI discussion is that for quite a while now, I have been trying to wean myself of WP (not very successful, as this comment shows). It is exactly unnecessary drama as that DS warning on my talk page that drives me away. There was no need to turn this into a gender-related issue and I for one absolutely interpreted that template as an accusation of editing in a gender-biased manner. Well, I challenge anybody to go through my whole WP history and come up with one single occasion of gender-biased editing. If even one occasion can be found, I'll ask for an immediate de-sysop and finally leave WP for good. (And, yes, I realize that several people will no shout "prima donna" at me, but I'm beyond caring). I absolutely understand Headbomb for taking this very badly, so did I. That he was not familiar with DS and therefore mistakenly invoked INVOLVED is really not an issue for me. Up till that point, I wasn't familiar with DS either, just knowing that it existed but never having edited in one of those contentious areas that they are applied to. In that whole episode, I felt that my integrity was attacked and I am sure that Headbomb felt the same. That this now comes back to haunt him at the RFA heaps injury upon insult. Sorry if this comment is perhaps less than coherent, but I actually have smoke coming out of my ears again. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC) (Remember that kittens are neuter!)
    I'm not really following the responses to my comment, but if any other male editors would like to line up here to explain that editing an article on a feminist journal can't have anything to do with gender, the best place is probably this RfA's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Male editors like yourself perhaps. Can't is a strong word, that sets up a strawman argument that nobody is going to bother with. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Also have to agree entirely with Mr rnddude's take on this. I've also been subject to this kind of verbal abuse (false accusations of sexism, etc.) for daring to try to ensure policy and guideline compliance on articles that happen to be about women or something to do with women. I think I may have used the F-word when someone tried that bullshit with me, too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  46. Sigh - I... I've never been a cheerleader for the convoluted bureaucracy that ArbCom is want to be... or the unabashed time sink that places like ANI are want to be... or confusing foul language itself with outright incivility... And if some answers here had been made in passing on the user's talk page, they wouldn't concern me nearly as much... But... there's a difference between saying something around the water cooler and saying something at the board meeting. The decision to take the approach here that's been taken, that this is the time to be a maverick, involves... just... stunningly bad judgement. If this is not the, then it is certainly one of the most high profile places on the project, and when I have to be quite this deliberate in the way I word my response, it inspires zero confidence that exactly that public lack of judgement would not quickly materialize into exactly 1) users confusing foul language itself for outright incivility, 2) time wasting threads at places like ANI, and 3) a quick trip to the convoluted bureaucracy of ArbCom. Overall, it shows a lack of seriousness, and a lack of respect for the fact that simply by virtue of existing, this discussion burns man-hours in real time. I would strongly suggest that, at this point, the decision to withdraw should be seriously considered for precisely that reason. GMGtalk 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  47. Strong Oppose The conduct at this ANI discussion tells me they do not have the mindset to be an administrator. Also answering "I'm not interested in dealing with WP:AE stuff and discretionary sanctions" as to a question how to handle issues regarding DS as an admin only furthers this mindset. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  48. Oppose Reading through the candidate's responses to the questions (particularly Q4 and Q8) it appears he is being deliberately provocative or doesn't really care whether this RfA passes or not. I fear he is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin and would create a great deal of drama, judging by the philoSOPHIA thread on ANI.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  49. Oppose Per Q4, Q8 answers, Sarah, and Boing. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  50. Oppose--I do not expect that every admin must be knowledgable, (let alone proficient) about DS as long as you are not into it.I have never seen Sandstein et al at BOTS But the problem is not with the position that you took, but the extremely aggressive and insulting way via which you laid the argument.While, I tend to feel for you about PHILOSOPHIA matter (and thus partially dis-agree with Ivanvector,) that could have been addressed with much more civility and without landing at doors of ADMINABUSE.Your comments at Q4, still-justifying his over-the-top behaviour, further undermines my confidence.An admin-candidate must be considerably non-baitable and shall have the demeanor to work in a more-or-less drama-free manner irrespective of your environment.You are un-doubtably one of the greatest assets of WP but regretably, that doesn't seem to resonate with adminship.Also, as Boeing commented, this RFA wass probably a last-chance-one and ought to have been tended better.Somehow, your attitude, which may be brutally honest(??), tends to give me the impression that you really do not care about this RFA.And also, on a diff.note, when your nominator, who is one of the most respected editors in the RFA circle, is asking you to withdraw, you are definitely not compelled to oblige but just asking him to withdraw his support on the basis that you don't understand the problems raised by numerous people over here, points to how-difficult it would be to convince you that you were wrong about certain actions/statements(or blocks etc. , if you have the mop) et al.Rigidity is a good trait but not too much of it.Sometimes, you really need to fall back and listen.And, it's sad to see the ever-widening contrast between the 2 concurrent nominations--both proposed by Ritchie333, which initially started on nearly parallel lines.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  51. Oppose Concerned about civility combined with limited understanding of DS, might be a bad combo as an admin. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  52. Oppose with regret. There are some folks who do not have the temperament to be an administrator here. Katietalk 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. Clean résumé, but answers to Q4 and Q8 create doubts with regards to fitness. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. You're a good editor and you do some great work, most of which doesn't require admin tools, so please don't take this RfA as a refection on your day-to-day editing. I can live with answers like the one to Q8; if you don't plan to get involved in arbitration enforcement, I don't expect you to know the procedures inside out. But your repeated use of terms like "abuse of powers" and "admin abuse" suggests that you're on a crusade against abuses that many reasonable editors don't think have actually occurred. That suggests to me that making you an admin would simply be to invite drama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. Many strengths, but along similar lines to the various editors above, I would have concerns about granting admin privileges. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  56. Oppose Agree that admins have heightened responsibilities on communication, do not feel the candidate has demonstrated the ability to discharge these responsibilities. FourViolas (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  57. Oppose – the candidate misses the basic communication skills needed for being a half-decent admin. What I saw in the Q/As above confirms the inklings I got from my earlier experiences with the editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  58. Oppose because of the answers to Q4 and Q8, which show a temperament that is not compatible with administratorship, in my opinion. Sorry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Headbomb is here to build the project and does solid work, however Headbomb has a little too much personality to make a suitable neutral admin. He would possibly end up being the very sort of admin he has no tolerance for. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. I was going to sit this one out but now I'm not, especially given the response to Q8. Temperament concerns, despite a history of great contributions. — sparklism hey! 11:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. Having studied the philoSOPHIA article dispute, I find Headbomb's attitude incompatible with the demeanour I expect of an administrator. What an incredible waste of the community's time over what I consider a trivial concern. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  62. Oppose per my concerns about civility/temperament. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  63. Oppose the net negatives outweigh the positives here. The temperament issues are a red flag for me. Overall just too many concerns to support. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  64. Oppose Response to Q8 is concerning. Jianhui67 TC 18:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  65. Oppose per Ealdgyth, Cullen328, Cwmhiraeth and others above, which parallel my own experiences interacting with this particular editor. Montanabw(talk) 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  66. Oppose Poor temperament. Does not demonstrate clear knowledge of policy. Seems likely to get embroiled in conflict. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  67. Oppose per Boing!sZ. Doesn't seem to have the admin-required levelheadedness, as shown in that AN thread. JTP (talkcontribs) 00:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  68. Oppose per B!sZ and the responses to Q4 and Q8. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 03:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  69. Oppose Choice of words too aggressive. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  70. Oppose Per Boing. User is not civil - User:DEJ88DP10 12:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  71. Oppose, per Boing...TJH2018talk 15:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  72. Strongest possible oppose - Per the response to questions 4, 7, and 8. Doesn't seem to have anywhere near the temperament nor the attitude needed to be an admin. Jdcomix (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Jdcomix: I can understand a Q4 oppose. I don't understand a Q8 oppose, but it seems to be a dealbreaker for some people for some reason that's beyond me. Fair enough. However a Q7 oppose is just mind boggling. What's wrong with that one? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Headbomb: How is it mind boggling? You said you'd "laugh at the vandal", which isn't what you're supposed to do. Also, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion on what responses were bad and which ones aren't. Don't take it personally, but I just don't think you have the temperament needed for this job, and I don't think you'd represent us well at all. Jdcomix (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Jdcomix: I didn't say I'd laugh at the vandal, I'd said I'd laugh. Like I'm sitting at home, laughing in my chair, because it'd be funny to me that somehow had that sort of time to waste, or thought this would somehow convince anyone that they were right, or that I could be intimidated by legal threats. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  73. Strong oppose I admit Headbomb is very experienced, and I appreciate their contributions to bots in particular, but there is nothing worse than a sanctimonious, arrogant, aggressive, and contemptuous administrator. One of the last people we need representing Wikipedia.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  74. Oppose Per Boing, KGirl and others. An administrator must exhibit "judicial temperament" (see Footnote 6 of this case for the California courts' definition of what I'm talking about). I see a lack of that in the invective exhibited in the episode in question and a failure to address the conduct in the Q & A. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  75. Oppose, based on review and Q 4. Does some good editing and appreciate their contributions, but at this time some temperament issues. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  76. Oppose, without any doubt. The most blatantly obvious problems are arrogance, aggressiveness, contempt for the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him, general BATTLEGROUND approach, etc. Nobody with that kind of approach to other editors would make a suitable administrator. There are other problems too, such as an inability to see the nature of what he himself is doing. To post such polemical and arrogant comments as Headbomb has done in his own RfA is a stiking, though far from unique, indication of the fact that he appears to be sincerely unable to see that he is being polemical and arrogant. Similarly there is an inability to understand the opinions of other people with whom he does not agree, or in some cases even to conceive of anyone having a different opinion, even when they have been carefully explained to him. "I see what you mean, but I don't agree because..." is fine, but a total inability to conceive of an opinion which differs from his is another matter altogether. No administrator can stand back and take a dispassionate view of an issue, setting his or her personal view aside, if he or she is incapable of seeing or understanding a view other than his or her personal one, and time and again Headbomb has shown exactly that kind of inability. There are also examples of misunderstanding of the nature of adminsitrative action (as for example in the much-commented-on question 4) and we certainly don't need administrators who don't know what administrative action is. Then there is persistent inability or refusal to look critically at his own past behaviour and admit his mistakes: it is all someone else's fault, and very probably admin abuse. In relation to previous RfAs there were suggestions of WP:NOTNOW, but since in more than nine years since the first one he still hasn't come anywhere remotely near to being suitable I'm afraid I can't avoid concluding that it's a question of WP:NOTEVER. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    And one other point which I forgot to mention. Support for giving adminship to an editor who has been edit-warring just over a week ago? Really? Should we also give adminship to candidates who have recently been vandalising? To those who have been spamming? How on earth can anyone have any faith whatever in an administrator who himself violates fundamental policies? To see not just an editor but an administrator giving support (albeit with reservations) in such a situation is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Even if there were no other problems, that one alone would, as far as I am concerned, totally rule the candidate out. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Your threshold for what you call an edit war is two reverts followed by a civil discussion that ends up in a way that's satisfactory to all parties involved? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  77. Oppose, just based on one encounter - pointing out that a (very confusing and unsupported) "See also" conglomeration could have several meanings including a WP:FRINGE one[15] was taken as a personal affront not to even be considered[16]. Trying to get past what seemed to be a misunderstanding followed by a knee-jerk response[17] went nowhere[18]. Tried following Headbomb advice and some kind of talk/response/edit procedure just lead to me being ignored and reverted[19]. Sorry, but thin skinned unresponsive editors should not be administrators. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  78. Oppose the responses to Q4 and Q8 show a stunning lack of self-awareness. When the nominator feels it's necessary to publicly caution the nominee about their responses and the advisability of showing remorse and humility, then something has gone seriously wrong. In this case, what has gone wrong is that the nominee has yet to grasp that their attitude in disputes is antithetical to the standards that admins are supposed to display. Doubling down on "their" side of the story in this discussion is just mind-boggling. To further reinforce the concerns about temperamental suitability by aggressively challenging the oppose votes such as JBW's just above is almost inconceivably poor judgment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  79. Oppose per User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Reverting someone's reasonable attempt to discuss something is incompatible with being an administrator. Gap9551 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  80. Oppose, despite the massive prior amount of positive contributions to the project, Headbomb has not shown the even temperament necessary to act as an admin in contentious cases. Loopy30 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  81. Strongest possible oppose - per Q4, and Q8 answers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, JamesBWatson, Eggishorn and Boing! said Zebedee. WP:BITE is still a severe problem here, and we don't need an admin that supports that. –Miles Edgeworth Talk 19:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  82. Oppose. Q8 tanked ya bud, sorry. -- œ 23:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  83. Oppose Because of his answer to Q8. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  84. Oppose Per answer to Q11 from User:Irondome. That a candidate should consider that they will never do anything with the tools that they anticipate will cause trouble, is a mistake from the beginning. Everyone makes mistakes, as they say, that's why pencils have erasers. But to then consider the action of undoing an administrative mistake, trivial is beyond understanding. Simply doesn't appear to have the right attitude for administration. Better luck next time. Dane|Geld 08:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    @DaneGeld: I didn't say I'd never make mistakes, I said I can't see what would cause any sort of uproar. Point out a mistake, it's a few clicks of work to undo. I'd call that trivial. It's certainly much less work than undoing a malfunctioning bot's edit.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  85. Oppose. Administrators are supposed to be model editors of Wikipedia. Therefore, it is a very distressing to see a person so liberally using some of the seven dirty words and ignoring all other forms of mannerism, considering that not only we are an RfA, but the 4th RfA. But this is not nearly as distressing as the answers to questions 4, 7 (most important), 8, 9 and 11. The nominee seems not to know things that are absolutely essential for a person to be fit to live in this world, let alone things that are essential for a Wikipedian who is not yet an admin. The nominee requires a good role model and is not yet fit to be a role model for anyone. Consider what I wrote an understatement. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Some good reasons why, some good reasons why not. I won't be too bothered if this passes. I don't think either side of that AN debate acted in a particularly optimal fashion, but I can't ignore the fact that concerns about the user's temperament were brought up in 2009 in the last RfA and those still seem to be current. On the other hand, the user has an awful lot of experience and does good work, and would probably help Wikipedia a lot if he became an admin, which is something so easily overlooked when someone unearths a piece of drama, and we really need more admins at the moment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral There is no doubt that this is one of the top contributors with excellent record in not only in content creation, but in a variety of different fields. I would like to point out that answer to question #3 is less than satisfactory in my opinion. Instead of making a general and rather polemical statement (which is putting me off), I am hoping to see at least one example that demonstrate the skills required in dispute resolution. Alex ShihTalk 08:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Also switching to Oppose after seeing the response to Q4. Alex ShihTalk 11:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral, possibly temporarily. When I first saw this, I thought it was going to be a walkover support. But I'm genuinely, and quite seriously, concerned by the level of aggression shown at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article, which is very recent - the approach shown there is absolutely contrary to admin status. I'm going to have to think harder about this before I possibly switch to Support or Oppose (and I'll probably ask I have asked a question of the candidate and will await the answer), but I thought it best to air my concerns right away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Interesting. A few admins (very experienced and those whom I actually respect) claim an article about a journal to be under discretionary sanctions, and tag a few other respected editors including Headbomb on their talk pages, informing (rather, warning) them of the implications thereon. The preceding argument is about the admins wishing inclusion of the advisory board of the journal within the article and the other tagged editors opposing the same, on the grounds of the same being promotional. Apparently, the article was not under discretionary sanctions, and the Rfc on inclusion of the advisory board concluded that such inclusion without reliable sources would not be following consensus. I can understand what an editor who contributes considerably to articles across the project can feel, when he is slapped with a discretionary sanctions notice for an article that is not under DS, and for an issue where the editor is absolutely right. I would feel as frustrated as Headbomb if I were placed in a similar position. Lourdes 10:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    But is edit warring and making such an aggressive show at ANI the right response for an admin candidate? I'd certainly understand it if you'd get frustrated too, Lourdes, but I think it is extremly unlikely you would respond the same way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Seems that most of the protection requests that Headbomb has made are related to content disputes he is in. One example of this (May 2017) is Isaac Newton in popular culture. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    There is a very recent example of Headbomb violating WP:3RR here. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I don't tend to look for drama (I avoid ANI like the plague when I can), so most of my RFPPs involve disputes I'm involved in. I don't plan on that changing, in the sense that any dispute I'm involved in would still go through RFPP. But I often come across revert wars that I figure others will handle eventually, because I can't really go through the hassle of making an RPFF request. For a recent dispute, I'd have protected Lorenz gauge condition w.r.t. to Talk:Lorenz gauge condition#Lorentz invariance. Twinkle makes that much easier now (I've installed it 6-7 months ago), but haven't come across much that needed reporting. Academic journals/physics is rather uncontroversial on most days. As for my alleged violation of 3RR on the Betacommand RFC, I can't say I see the violation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Oh sorry, my mistake. Regardless, it shows how you still have a combative demeanor at times, a concern which seems to have been present in previous RfAs. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    For whatever it's worth, for exceptionally experienced editors to end up at a rhetorical position of You're a GENDER reverting a GENDER. is pretty reminiscent of probably several thousand past instances of You're a CITIZEN OF COUNTRY WITH A HISTORY OF ETHNIC CONFLICT reverting a CITIZEN OF COUNTRY WITH A HISTORY OF ETHNIC CONFLICT. Arguments like that are rarely if ever constructive. GMGtalk 11:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Switching to Oppose after the response to Q4. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Although I can't oppose because of the fact that the candidate seems to understand Wikipedia policy pretty well and I don't think they would block Jimbo, but the behavioural issues make me wary to support. The reason why these would possibly have an effect on how good of an admin one would be is because they show that the candidate doesn't really listen too well to advice. Because this could result in them doing something against consensus, I cannot support. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I know the nominee does a great deal for Wikipedia, considering bot(s) they operate ... but every time I see the nominee's name, I remember what happened at Template talk:Db-meta/Archive 3#Regarding Template:Db-r2. Steel1943 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I think this is the first time I've ended up here. There are many good reasons to support Headbomb and it is always a joy to see his name in my watchlist. Yet, on reading his answers to Q4 and Q8, and the opposes above, I must admit that I am swayed – not enough to oppose, but enough to ensure that I cannot support this nomination in good conscience. I would support a 5th nomination if he improves on the areas highlighted, especially his tendency towards combative behaviour. The circumstances involved explain his behaviour but do not excuse it, at least in my opinion. Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Headbomb has pinged me on the talk page of this RfA, referencing his clarification of what he meant in his answer to Q8. His clarification is indeed a much better answer, and I would have been less uncomfortable with supporting if he had given that from the start. But the sheer magnitude of this misfire, combined with evidence of his previous behaviour (which leans to the combative side), does not really inspire confidence. I would have much preferred it myself if he had waited until he felt he could give a more satisfactory (and, dare I say it, slightly less cynical) answer, as he evidently could: the virtue of looking before one leaps would go a long way to alleviate a leaning towards combative behaviour. But as it stands, I regretfully still cannot bring myself to support this run.
    • Having said that, Headbomb is clearly getting a lot of worthwhile community feedback here, and his clarification here certainly shows that he is paying attention to it. Given that, it is probably more likely than I previously thought that Headbomb's behaviour at a hypothetical 5th RfA will convince me to support him, though this is all hypothetical at the moment. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Headbomb performs a lot of valuable work on the project, but I am concerned by some of the issues raised by opposers. I would definitely support a future run, though. -FASTILY 06:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral I'm turn both ways here. On the one hand, I think the answer to question 8 is a fine one and wish we had more editors who thought this way. I can understand if there are some who find the language course; I'm usually of that persuasion, though much less so when it is directed at those in a position of power and even less when it is directed at institutions. Either way, the sentiment is the right one (assuming we believe that he doesn't want to be involved in AE, which I do). In other words, largely per NYB and OR. On the other hand, the whole Q4 thing does give me pause and I will think about it some more. I think the candidate was very much in the right in that situation and have some real concerns about how others with the bit behaved; nonetheless, it was an opportunity too demonstrate how he responds to stressful situations and I don't think he covered himself in glory. I haven't reviewed the thread recently and will read back and reconsider when I get a moment. It's one thing to say you don't know how to handle DS and that's okay because you don't intend to be involved in DS enforcement; it's rather another to find someone who doesn't handle stressful situations well. They often can't be avoided. GoldenRing (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Moved to support. GoldenRing (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I can see that this candidate has done a lot of good work on the English Wikipedia and intends to contribute more in the future. I have a strong feeling that half the "oppose" comments happened because Headbomb happened to be on the "wrong" side of many controversial disputes and some editors are politically opposing him for his opinion on those matters, which makes me amenable to supporting him because I think diversity of opinion is important. However, Headbomb's propensity to use strong language in heated discussions, even using "shit" and "fuck" in RfA, finally convinced me to land here because these suggest that his involvement in a highly polarised conflict might fan the flame as much as he wants to fix the situation. Deryck C. 17:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I don't like being indecisive, but I have not been able to decide either way. The positives and negatives have been stated multiple times, but none have helped me decide. Equineducklings (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Neutral pending further review. A true see the forest for the trees situation. I'll need more time to look over everything - this is more a reminder to self to check back. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. I'm not comfortable supporting, but I feel no need to add another oppose. I am disappointed to see an oppose, especially a "strongest possible" one, was based in part on the fact that the candidate talked about laughing at vandals (or simply because of them, as Headbomb clarified). There is absolutely nothing wrong with laughing at/because of vandals. By their own choice, vandals are an enemy of Wikipedia. I find it inappropriate to insist that an admin be nice to vandals. Lepricavark (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Neutral I liked some of the answers to the questions, but I'm not really seeing a demonstrated need for the BPD suite (tldr of Q8(see q6)). (And I know that makes we look like a mile high Janus because I believe that 80% of editors here would make good admins, and not even the well thought out opposes move me to oppose). To a certain extent, I disagree with #7's answer and let someone uninvolved handle them. Vandalism, NPA, and OUTING shouldn't require an uninvolved admin to do the honors of a temporary block and rev-delling. The crimes there are so obvious I would totally support you indeffing the editor without a blockr eview or any further input from outside groups. I thinking of NOTSUICIDE here, this is just Wikipedia, not an Officer Involved Shooting. FTR, with New Page Patrols (Q9), toxicity levels should be at an all time low, as ACTRIAL is temporarily policy, now. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Just reread this and seeing how ridiculous I sound. Support.L3X1 (distænt write) 16:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Unstruck I don't like your support crowd lack of faith or bad faith (Purgy) and your unwillingness to commint to 1rr. Feel free to convince me to either side, any of yall. And please ping me if you do. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    @L3X1: Sure. People are piling on ONE incident in 10 years, and reducing me to being some kind of WP:MASTODON, but it's certainly isn't a regular occurence (see e.g. this topic ban discussion I initiated). If I really had a problem with edit warring, or with anger issues, I'd be a regular at the WP:AN/EW or WP:3RR noticeboards and elsewhere. I can't even recall the last time at I was at one of those noticeboards. Probably 3+ years ago if not 5+ years ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks. I've reread and re thought about everything, and feel comfortable with you being an admin. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. Regretful Neutral While I wish that I could support, it's generally expected that all Admins are expected to pitch in on all activities. An admin preemptively discluding themselves from a portion of the workload only makes specialized admins. Until the toolset is unbundled, this is a neutral. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Hasteur: I don't mean to "badger," and the outcome of the RfA is clear, but I have to say—I can't think of any administrator who "pitches in on all activities" across the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
General comments
  • Just some thoughts after reading previous RfA requests. I don't think it's ever an issue having many failed nominations, but I do think it's important to address why these nominations failed, and whether or not the key issues raised by the community have been addressed, rather than to dismiss them as usual pitfalls. Having read a recent AN/I report started by the editor back in June 2017, I am afraid some of the past concerns may still be very present. Alex ShihTalk 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That's useful information, Alex, and I find it helpful you brought it to our attention. Based on my initial reading, this discussion linked is not a disqualifier, but it does say something about the candidate's ability to distinguish between notices and active sanctions, the definition and rules for WP:INVOLVED, and proper tone for civil discussion when parties disagree. BusterD (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to elaborate a little on my !vote, re his comments in the ANI I think this nominee is correct in being sensitive to admins possibly overstepping their bounds and behaving in a manner that is not warranted. But first, I feel that he had no reason for reaching that conclusion based on my reading of the ANI. Secondly, this would have been a good opportunity for him/her to clear the air concerning their foul language but they failed to adequately do so. The answers to Q4 concern me. Until we figure out a better way of dealing with abusive and uncivil admins---a serious problem, as far as I'm concerned----admin candidates deserve and will get close scrutiny concerning their temperament. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • IMHO, the ANI thread might mean there might need to be a Headbomb 5 some other time. Because this has clearly caused controversy here. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there will be a Headbomb5. If there is, and if I'm still around, the next time round I will be one of the first to oppose. One of my criteria (not used as a rationale here) is: I will no longer support a 4th (or more) attempt at adminship, nor will I support a disclosed WP:RTV that was the result of Arbcom sanctions or a community ban of any kind. I made a grave error of judgement by supporting this 5th RfA, desyoped August 13, 2013 For cause. Incidentally, that particular desysop probably wouldn't have caused a ripple, but the news was Tweeted during Gardner's valedictory at a packed Wikimania lecture theatre, in which she was thanking him for his work. The ripples of supressed comment were audible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    I largely agree. If a candidate's aggressive temperament has not softened in the eight years between RFA3 and RFA4, then it's never going unlikely ever to change. I see this RFA as a last-chance one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've never felt like I've been here long enough or known anyone well enough to vote here...or even comment. But @Kudpung: and @Boing! said Zebedee:, both of your comments are completely out of line. If you want to oppose someone, that's fine, but declaring your intention to oppose a future RfA before it's even happened, without even waiting to see what the intervening time brings is wholly inappropriate, especially when you're using a single event to base that decision upon. Especially Kudpung, how is bringing up some past WMF drama even remotely appropriate here? --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Deacon Vorbis, I will be replying on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You have misunderstood/misrepresented what I said, so I will not respond further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, some of the opposition says this was the last-chance RfA because there has to be a limit on those things, and others say they will support the next one when the incident will be further back in the rear window (e.g. neutral #4,5). It is none's fault in particular, but I urge RfA regulars to at least realize what a Kafka-esque situation this is. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I said that I would support a 5th RfA if he improves on the areas highlighted, while Fastily said that he or she would definitely support a future run, so there is a slight difference. I do sympathise with Boing's and Kudpung's opinions that if change hasn't happened by the 4th RfA, it probably won't (that is if I am reading them correctly; if not I most sincerely apologise). But I don't want to say I'd close the door entirely, because while it is unlikely to happen IMHO, it would be enough to sway me to support if it did happen. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it a little premature to discuss a 5th RfA when this one isn't even concluded? Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Because whether or not one would support a 5th RfA is rather contingent on identifying problems one sees with Headbomb's current candidacy, and seeing if one believes that he will be able to improve on them with feedback. Surely both of these are important for the current 4th RfA, and talking about a 5th is simply another way to say either "he's not there now, but I believe he can improve significantly" or "he's not there now, and he's been here long enough that I don't believe that there will be any significant change in future". At least, that's the reason I personally brought it up; others may have had different reasons to do so. Double sharp (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Most of the voters who changed thier vote were put off by Q8. I agree the answer is inappropriate, but I think it is not enough to oppose. He has his own thinking/philosophy (which i respect), and he is willing to work in specific domains by exluding some. Although, the ANI discussion (pointed out by Alex above) has swayed me from support to neutral. I think I will sit this one out. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Headbomb, as much as I hate to say it as a supporter, I strongly suggest you withdraw. Regards, SrMeI 03:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    What benefit do you get from withdrawing instead of letting the RfA run its course? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • This RfA is yet another strong indication that we need to unbundle more admin tools (the way we've done with WP:Template editor, WP:File mover, WP:Page mover, etc.). The more urgently we need admins the plainer and plainer it becomes that our historical RfA system of not granting any access to any tools unless we collectively trust someone with every single admin-only power, up to and including long-term blocks and discretionary sanctions, is increasingly dysfunctional. Various long-term editors have the skill and desire to help clear backlogs of various kinds and do other grunt work, without any interest at all in playing wiki-cop at drama boards. When one has a proven track record of good use of at least two formerly-admin-only tools, it's a net loss to the project to deny them any other tools in their toolbox. If a "commoner" volunteers to clean the stables without also being interested in the Witchfinder General role, we should do something with them other than say "no". Our one-size-fits-all approach to user permissions above the admin threshold hasn't worked well in years.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Support the separation of powers. This will allow the tools be allocated more appropriately, instead of not letting users have any of the tools like in a failed RfA. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
To date, a perennially unsuccessful proposal. (I see the pros and cons; I'm not sure how I'd !vote were it proposed again.) Neil S. Walker ([email protected]) 12:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Except it's not. See again WP:Template editor, WP:File mover, WP:Page mover, etc. It's a perennially successful proposal, one aspect at a time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
A "perennially successful proposal"? Good luck with that then. Neil S. Walker (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I've also been wondering whether it should be possible to gain specific admin tools, and not others. Using myself as an example, I'm mainly interested in the admin tools here for image editing, such as deleting local files that are already on Commons or are copyvios, or for moving articles to other titles, but little else. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: additional permission for both page and file moving are available for requesting at WP:PERM. — xaosflux Talk 01:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it political? Because unbundling is common sense for years. --IHTS (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Folks, might I suggest that trying to get any unbundling of admin rights is a pretty pointless exercise here at this individual RFA? It will be closed in about a day's time, and this discussion is guaranteed to achieve precisely nothing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2017 (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.
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA