Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 2

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

Headbomb

edit

(talk page) Final (1/10/2) - closed 23:15, July 8 2008 (UTC) by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs)

Headbomb (talk · contribs) - WikiProject Physics Co-ordinator (self appointed) Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request from the candidate

edit

I assume good faith from all on Wikipedia. When I don't understand something, I ask questions and usually refrain from taking a position unless I'm know what I'm taking about. If I don't know what I'm talking about, then I may take a provisional position, detailing that I'm ignorant on certain aspects and would need more informations on these aspect to evaluate if my position is unwarranted. I try to hold myself to very high standards in terms of backing my position with sound arguments. In my last RfA, I was saddened that these courtesies were not extended to me by all reviewers.

If you aren't sure of something, or would like more information on me, ask questions and I will reply to all of them, whether there are 10 or 100. I don't get why so many people complain that candidates have "many questions".

Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People notified

edit

I've notified WikiProject Physics, as it is they who will be most affected by my adminship. Same as last time. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Default questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Like I mentionned last time, I plan to mainly keep to WikiProject Physics and related activities. However, I've recently became a lot more interested in template-making, template uniformity, and on the structure of Wikipedia and its tools, and I plan to be involved in that. I don't like the term "admin" as I don't think I would make a lot of "admin" like decision. The "admin"-work would be mostly related to protecting and unprotecting pages (currently, placing {{editprotected}} can take several days before you have a response), editing/moving protected pages, etc... I'm completely uninteresting in deletions (although I would probably use my admin powers to delete stuff in my user pages to save other people this trouble), and vandal blocking, as I don't like making such decisions without consultation (although I would certainly tag articles for deletion, and bring particularly annoying vandals to WP:AIV's attention), and would rather have other people take care of it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
  • Projects of the Week: Basically helps to focus attention on the highest importance articles of the lowest quality. It involved rewrite some code for the {{physics}} banner, as well as going over 2000 articles a couple of times to give them assessment and importance ratings.
  • Reviewing Cheetsheet: A tool to help editors to systematically improve the articles they are working on.
  • The purge and rewrite of the participant list, as the old list was filled with inactive editors, and made it hard to find help.
  • Overhaul of the WP Physics main page. Compare with [1] to see the difference.
  • I also make a point of dropping by FAC and FLC to see if there are science topics every once in a while, because science topics seems to scare reviewers.
  • I try to answer everything brought up on the WP Physics talk page in a timely manner, as slowness in response gives the impression that the project is dead, and people don't bother coming to dead projects for help.
  • And a lot of other things.
  • Next would be my List of baryons, which recently got featured. When I started to edit the article, I knew next to nothing about baryons, and the literature on the topic is very cryptic and layman un-friendly. I spend two month locked in my room to understand what made baryons tick, and what the hell isospin was (I was very pissed at particles physicists when I understood it, as it's completely unnatural and convoluted, see list of baryons for details). This involved spending a lot of time finding references for everything, and spending a lot of time to understand what made baryons "tick", and a great amount of time to explain things to a general audience. I consulted with at least 4 particle physicists, one whom I know IRL, about 10 undergrad physics students and about 5-6 people non-physics students (infocomm, math, biology, political science) and I think I've succeeded in making a list of very high quality and of very high worth in general.
  • I'm also told that the resolution of the IEC prefix debate is a feat worthy of mention. The details can be found here, although IEC-proponents are making another push.
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:
Last RfA's answer


  • Some users were against the deprecation of IEC prefix on Wikipedia (mainly Thunderbird and Woodstone, as well as another editor who dropped by), others users were for the deprecation (11 editors). I've asked them, as well as others, many times to substantiate the reasons of their opposition, but they failed to do from the beginning of the debate 'till the very end of it. Until almost the very last day, no reason were given, when it became apparent that they were not "winning". Thunderbird then mentionned a vote 3-4 months ago that opposed the deprecation. I pointed out that no-one their gave reasons for their opposition, and could therefore be ignored under the grounds that unsubstantiated opposition can be ignored. A vote was held asking if people thought the proposed rewrite had consensus, rather than on whether or not theypersonally agreed the proposal (since that was asked elsewhere). Woodstone came in and opposed the upload for personal reasons, so I re-classified his vote in "personal reasons" and he strongly objected to that, since that meant his vote on whether or not there was consensus would be ignored. Some edit warring ensued, the vote ended being anywhere from 10 for the upload, vs 3 opposition to 11 vs. 1, depending on how you count votes. On the grounds that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that the 3 editors opposing did not provide good reasons for not uploading the proposal, I uploaded it. I don't regret anything I did, but looking back, more talk before re-categorizing Woodstone's vote probably would've avoided a lot of problems.
  • Another debate was that of the inclusion of the "Follow current literature" (a controversial section) section in the rewrite. Greg L strongly pushed for that section to be included, but I kept arguing all the "meat" of the FCL section was already included elsewhere, and detailed how every point of the FCL section were covered in the rewrite. Greg L kept saying that the FCL section wasn't addressed etc... until he read one of the bullets I wrote detailed how the FCL section was indeed covered by the rewrite, and we came to an agreement, and so did everyone who either opposed or supported the FCL section in the first place.
This IMO, shows that I'm willing to work with those who I don't agree with, even if they insult me, and that I am able to set my personal feelings asides to work productively with editors. Greg L insulted me many times, but I've kept my cool and asked him to retract his statements and he did. I've also berated him for uncivil conduct towards other users. That did not stop us from working cooperatively. Same goes for Fnagaton, whom I've accused of being a sock-master of DavidPaulHamilton. I've worked with both Fnag and DPH, even tho I considered them to be master and puppet, because what they said made sense and because their points were valid. I also worked with Jimp, even though I disagreed with him on the relevance of the FCL section, incorporating many and most of his suggestions for the rewrite. The list goes on.
  • In general I try to follow a "Please remain civil. The problem would be clearer if you explain what exactly is the problem and the details of how you would go to fix it." type of approach, for the first few times, then after a few times a curt warning that the discussion is over until user becomes willing to discuss the problem in civil terms.


Addition questions by the candidate

edit
4. You say you want to be a "power" editor. What projects have you in mind that would necessitate access to admin tools.
A: Well currently I'm working on a {{Generic WikiProject Banner}}, (taking great care to write clear and well-structured code that can be read by other people), and this involves dealing with protected templates such as {{-Class}} and {{Top-importance}}, as well as the creation of a "type" parameters such as {{Article-type}}, {{Image-Type}}, and {{Portal-type}} to enable the assessement of non-"articles" (aka A-Class List, Good-Class Portals, C-Class Template...). Many of these templates are not code-harmonized with each other, making bot maintenance a lot more difficult, and they could have greater usability. I've adapted {{Generic WikiProject Banner}} for {{WPAstronomy}} and it works fine. Right now it feels like I'm back in 3rd grade when kids have to ask teachers if they can go take a drink/piss/get up to sharpen a pencil. I think I've proven my worth and goodwill enough to be able to edit protected stuff without asking first.
5. Didn't you apply like, last week?
A: Yeah, and I've been incredibly frustrated ever since because I got involved in writing templates. I'm frustrated that I have to ask first to do completely minor and uncontroversial tasks that would greatly improve Wikiprojects. That is why I asked for adminship and that it why I'm asking to for it again. I make {{editprotected}} (that's definitively a place I'll watch like a Hawk) requests that goes unanswered for days, and sometimes I simply give up because I don't want to make 20 edit-protect requests to edit the various {{-Class}} and {{-importance}}. It's trouble for me, and it's trouble for admins. I'm a very active editor (I've got ~1500 more edits than I had when I applied for Adminship two weeks ago). That X amount of time has to pass between re-application is not a rule, but if it were, I'd invoke WP:IAR, since waiting more means less productivity.
6. Why do you think you failed last time and what would be different this time?
A. Well, I started to get what I consider very poor reasons, from a few editors. I focused on these poor reasons ('cause that's what I do in debates, find poor reason and debunk them, as good reasons are valid and only need to be acknowledged). I lost perspective and reacted like a majority of responses were like that, when they were not. I could also have made it clearer that I wasn't interested in AfD, XfD, WP:ANI and the like and that I wanted the tools for power-editing rather than deletions, blocking, and the like. Hence I want to restart the whole thing from scratch again, with hopes that there'll be less bickering than last time from all sides (me included).
7. Are you open to recall?
A: Yes, and all Admins should be if you ask me.
8. The tool says your edit summary usage is not at 100%... can I trust you to use it more in the future?
A. The tool is inaccurate. I'm much more involved on the Wikipedia space than I am on the main space. My last ~1400 edits (since someone pointed out that they wanted a better edit summary usage) all have edit summaries save perhaps 5 (sometimes I keep lost if I'm in previewing mode, or if I've been prompted to give an edit summary, and also you're not prompted for edits on you own talk pages)).
9. Aren't you a little bit boastfull?
A. I hate bragging, and I don't like people who do. However, I'm not shy to call a duck a duck. If I do good work, I'm not afraid to use it as an example of what to do. I did a good job with WP Physics, and good work is something worth sharing so others can be inspired from it and adapt it to their own needs. I suck at creating something from scratch, but I'm very good at improving and adapting current stuff (see {{WPAstronomy}}).
10. You seem very impatient.
A. I am very eager, not impatient. Things worth doing are worth taking time. Things worth doing are worth doing now, if possible.
Question from Mazca
11. Your nomination seems strongly worded around the benefits of having an admin involved in WikiProject Physics. How would you plan to put admin tools to use as part of your work there?
A.

General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

edit
  • Okay, I'm not gonna' !vote yet, but I need to say that this probably will fail. People really take issue when a single user has mutiple noms within two months of each other, so I doubt they'll handle two within a single month well. I hope I'm wrong about this, but if things start going south you might be better off just withdrawing. Luck. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm well aware of that. I gave reasons for my re-applying in such a short time, and hopefully people will consider it rather than place oppose - too soon without reading what I wrote. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between not reading what you wrote and not agreeing with what you wrote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read all that you wrote, and I still feel it's too soon. You also seem like you get mad easily, which is not good with the power you would have.tabor-drop me a line 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
edit
  1. Supported you last week, don't believe you've suddenly gone insane since then. Naerii 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. This comment doensn't sit well with me. The bitterness there is not something I want to see in an administrator. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See [2] and [3] Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Too soon after last RFA. tabor-drop me a line 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Way too premature, indicating an extensive lack of judgement. I am also dismayed by the candidate's opening statement which would seem to suggest that rather he feels that the reasons for the prior RfAs unsuccessful outcome was a result of the opposers, rather than accepting responsbility for what role he may of played. The whole point of the intermittent period between RfAs is to reflect and judge yourself based upon what the community wants of an administrator, with actions upon that. In two weeks, you couldn't have done this and the regretful statement in the link by Seresin should have avoidable. Rudget (logs) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See [4] and [5] and answer to Q5, and Q6. I also don't see why I can't criticize the RfA process. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to criticize the process; people are also just as welcome to oppose you for running too soon. I do empathize with your situation; my second RfB left me with an incredibly sour taste in my mouth, and I was opposed for reasons that I still maintain were incredibly weak. However, I waited to try again for several months (and, what's more, waited until someone nominated me). You may feel you're "in the right" by going ahead with a second attempt so soon after your first one, but it doesn't do anything to help your chances. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Its strange to re-apply so soon and its disappointing even to your supporters, who would like you to prove the critics wrong by patient work and positive attitude. Don't you see that your re-applying composes entirely of defiance and combativeness? Yes the opposers on your last RfA may have misjudged you but this is not the way to respond. This also feeds the notion that you are anxious to obtain the tools. Vishnava talk 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. (edit conflict) Running RFAs two weeks in a row is not a sign of having a good understanding of the community. I opposed your last RFA here. In that oppose I cited that you had 3 edits to XFD, 27 to RFPP, 0 to AIV, and 0 to UAA. Since your last RFA, you added 3 more edits to RFPP, and none to any other of those areas. That's not why I'm opposing, though, it really comes down to the fact that you just had an RFA last week. You did manage to add 1400 edits since then, but, yeah, I'm citing the unfamiliarity with the community indicated by the RFAs in rapid succession as the basis for thinking that you still need some more experience and I'm using that inexperience as the basis for my oppose. Useight (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - what were you thinking? This makes you look rash and too thirsty for power. Regardless if you are or not. Qb | your 2 cents 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay for getting judged on looks and not on actualyl intents. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most Wikipedia contributors are not telepathic. What you do, and how you appear, is all people can judge you on. ~ mazca t | c 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect! Add sarcasm to the mix! Qb | your 2 cents 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In the immortal words of Stan Lee, 'nuff said---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Why doom your chances doing it this way? You're wasting your time and ours, and potentially depriving yourself of any chance of a successful request for at least the next 6 to 10 months. Avruch 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose coming back so soon after the community rejected your last RfA shows a contempt for the community and the opinions expressed in the last RfA. It also demonstrates a profound lack of judgment - what makes you think that the outcome could possibly be different just a week later? You are confirming the doubts expressed before, not assuaging them. Gwernol 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-applied because the last RfA was ill-handled by both others and I. I wanted a fresh start, to better explain my position, clarify why I want to tools and what I want to to with them. You don't need 2095 months to do some introspection. I've assume good faith from you all, but apparently I was wrong. Apparently people can't assume good faith, and can't judge past what they want to be the appearances. A real shame. I though being an admin was no biggie. Seems like I was wrong again. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are displaying exactly what we expected to see from previous behavior. Not matter how much good you'd do with the tools, your attitude is betraying your inherent wish to do good. And that is what people are opposing. Or, at least, me. Qb | your 2 cents
Neutral
edit
  1. No, this is exactly the kind of thing I hoped you wouldn't do.  :( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To avoid pile-on oppose. Too soon since last time, and questionable comments in various areas. GlassCobra 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Headbomb_2&oldid=1075587040"