Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb

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

Headbomb

FINAL (17/38/11); Closed 2:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb (talk · contribs) - A very active editor on WikiProject Physics that wants to breathe a new life in it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Request from the candidate

I would appreciate it if you would evaluate my request in the mindset that I want to work on WikiProject Physics related stuff and coordinate the project's effort, not take over Wikipedia. The fact is WikiProject Physics needs an admin to be around. I have the will and heart to be one, and I think I display the leadership required to coordinate stuff over there. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If it'll ease your fears, I'd be open to recall.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you acknowledged in some way that you've read my replies, and mentionned that your vote are still up to date (with an update if you've changed your mind (either side)). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to mainly keep to WikiProject Physics and related activities. I've been part of it since about 2-3 months and the lack of a "contact person" really drove me nuts at first and made it difficult to "get into" the Physics project. Not that I am ungrateful to those who helped me, it's just that sometimes it took several days to receive the pointers I needed. I plan to do some major overhauling of the Physics project, as well as build and coordinate a "team" of users that want to help with the project beyond simple editing. This requires some tools I don't have access to right now, hence my Request for Adminship.

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

A: So far I'm proudest of

• WikiProject Physics' Projects of the Week: It's not "launched" yet, since there are some tasks that remains to be done before this goes gold, but things are looking up. It involved rewriting some code for the Project Banner to have better "categories" to keep track of the work being done, assessing a bunch of articles (I've went over 1500 articles in two weeks, many of them more than once), identifying templates and categories so they are more accessible, building a "reviewer's cheat sheet" to systematically improve physics articles. I did lots of other things on the project's page, such as updating the "current" activities that were completely outdated save a few items.
• List of baryons: I also rewrote the list to the point that it's completely unrecognizable from what it used to be. I've expanded the list from a list of about 20 particles with no explanations of anything, completely outdated, not comprehensive etc..., to a list of every^[a] baryon out there, with full explanations of everything that are both factually correct and understandable by the layperson (I think). The list is currently nominated as a featured list (self nomination, 2nd time) and should pass, unless people are scared by the topic. I invite you to review this list, since I would really hate to see it fail on account that no one bothered to review it.
• MOSNUM – Units of Measurements: The section was just filled with redundant statements and lacked a sort of "structure". I lead a discussion that went on over two months, that resulted on a significant improvement of the MoS (well, IMO at least), the creation of a new section about scientific notation, and the resolution of the IEC prefix debate (in the sense that only 3-4 users on Wikipedia are against it). You can see the difference here.

[a] not every, but every one that should be included.

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:

• The worst debate I've had involved the rewrite, and many conflicts with many users happened. Particularly Thunderbird2 and Woodstone. The details of the conflict can be seen in the Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) archive, but for those who don't feel like going through it, here's the synopsis:

• 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.

Questions that will probably asked due to my "inexperience"

4. Aren't you a bit inexperienced?

A: In a way, yes I am. However I am a very fast learner, and I'm able to find the things I need very rapidly. Also since I've dabbled around here and there (MoS, Admin abuse of power, vandalism on my users page, revert wars over IEC prefixes, meddling with templates), I've seen the good and the bad of wikipedia, and the relevant policies since people quoted them profusely.

5. You don't have a lot of admin-like action in your history, why is that, or why do you feel this is not a valid objection?

A: True. But one of the reasons that I don't have a lot of admin-like actions is that I do a lot of background work, where there is very little edit warring, vandalism and the like. There's also good chance that I'm currently the most active editor in the Wikiproject Physics, and because I have a large number of page on my watchlist (thanks to reviewing about 1500 articles, and it's not stopping now), I can "monitor" a lot of things within the project quite easily (although not all things).

6. Don't you think your number of mainspace edits (~850) is a bit low?

A: Not considering what the nature of my work is. When not assessing articles and working on the list of baryons, I mostly spent time on the talk pages trying to revamp or build policies and guidelines, as well as give the occasional insight here, there, and elsewhere when people request that I do so.

Optional question from User:Metros

7. As a follow-up to your first question and answer, specifically what tools do you see are necessary for the role you are striving for with the Wikiproject? Metros (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A: Particularly the tools allowing me to move protected pages, to edit hi-usage protected templates (such as {{physics}}, tools to move pages and subpages together, the tools allowing me to protect pages from vandalism and from move wars, the tools allowing me to bring back deleted pages from the dead and to consult their old content to see if there weren't some good ideas in there. There might be other tools that would be useful down the road as, but I haven't had the need for them so far.

Optional questions from MBisanz

8. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?

A: On the technical side, I'm pretty unfamiliar with every tool since I'm not an admin. It will take some familiarizing, but there's Admin coaching for that and I'll ask other admins if I have questions on how they work. Policy-wise I'm familiar with every of them (save the stuff dealing with bot rollbacks). If I'm ever in need of having my memory refreshed, then it's a simple matter of going through the policy page.

FYI, admin coaching is supposed to be done before running for adminship. Gary King (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

9. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag. Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that they're a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?

A: No. If the user is a vandal, then the user is a vandal. Of course, warnings should be given first, and invitations to take things to the talk page be given. If he/she persist, a temporary block is in order, then a longer block, etc... Of course specific actions always depends on what exactly is going on. If they protest that they are a trusted user than shouldn't be block, then I'll ask them to justify how why they should be exempt of the 3RR or whatever rule out when everyone else isn't.

General comments

• See Headbomb's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Headbomb: Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Comments:

• I find it very strange that edit summary usage, mainspace edits, and lack of involvement in admin-like activities such as speedy deletion and whatever, is such a concern for many of you. The first seems terribly minor, while the later two seems to be textbook examples of arguments that should be avoided in RfA discussion. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• For an example of how I typically handle things, you can go at Talk:Joule–Thomson effect.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Part of the discussion was moved here. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• As an FYI, several of the participants of WikiProject Physics are administrators and visit Wikipedia regularly, so if anything is required, they can also be contacted. Gary King (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. No reason to believe you'd go crazy with them. Naerii (complain) 23:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. His edit summary use is better than mine. His Q1 answer shows the right motivations. 4024 edits is nowhere near not enough experience. Anyone who can write about Baryons obviously has intelligence, and thus clue. Why the hell not? giggy _(:O) 02:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Seriously, can you tutor me? Baryons = fail. :(
4. Strongly - edit summary usage isn't all that important, and while his mainspace count to simple edit-counters is rather little, most of those edits are to one article, which vastly improves my opinion of his mainspace work - the fact that it looks like it's passing a FLC right now doesn't hurt either. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could think WP:NOTNOW is applicable to this user - I had an uncontroversial RfA with a full thousand edits fewr than the 4000 this user has, and about the same experience in WP:AIV, WP:UAA, etc. though admittedly I had quite a bit more work in WP:XFDs. I really can't see that any of the opposes make any sense at all. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Actually Aubrey brings up a valid point, but I really don't think that's enough to oppose. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Support, user plainly has good intentions, and I see nothing that would indicate that this user would maliciously misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC).
6. Weak Support This user has indicated they will use the tools to help combat vandalism on articles relating to physics. I think its good to have admins who specialize on a certain topic, and that is the first reason why I'm supporting this user. The second reason why I'm supporting you is because I don't think you'll misuse the tools when doing the work you have stated you'll do as an admin. My support of you is weak because of your inexperience, and because your contributions thus far indicate you won't be a overly active admin.--SJP (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support From my interactions with this editor, he seems to have his head screwed on right (despite his username), and I'm confident that he will use the admin tools with care. My only (small) concern is that this nomination is a bit premature; a little more experience (of order a couple of months) would have been good. Mike Peel (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support due to no negative interactions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   While I appreciate the support, the reason given for it seems rather weak. No negative interactions with someone whom you never had any interaction with isn't an indicator of many things. Giving support on shoddy ground is a good way of having bad surprises. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Actually this support is the epitome of good faith. He has defaulted to the position of trust because you have not given him a reason to mistrust you. That's the best you can ask for. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you Wisdom89, for summing that up well. For what it's worth, I also like User:Headbomb#Barnstars and that the candidate has not been blocked. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Support The candidate is a highly intelligent individual who is an asset to Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Of course. Al Tally ^talk 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support because I absolutely do not want to be called upon to assist in any issues related to physics, and this editor clearly has an understanding of the subject superior to my own. Diversity amongst the admins is often lacking. Having someone who is competent in a complex subject area, and therefore can use the tools to do more than block vandals, or maintain the integrity of Battlestar Galactica, is an asset, rather than a limitation. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support I think that Headbomb would be an excellent adminstrator. He has done a lot of work for wiki project physics and can be trusted with Admin tools. His interactions with other editors so far have been exemplary. The real test here is how you deal with a problematic editor who makes outrageous comments. As I explained in my comment below oppose vote #18, he passed that test with flying colors.
    There are a few valid reasons one might be concerned, these are mentioned in oppose votes #3, #4, and #20, basically lack of experience I think, however, that that lack of experience is not a big concern here. Headbomb will work mainly on the physics articles and unlike most of the rest of wikipedia, that's a peaceful sector of wikipedia. For an Admin to be able to function effectively here, it is much more important that the Admin is a physicist than that he is a battle hardened wikipedian. In fact, given the permanent state of war many wiki politics articles are in, one has to question the relevance of many of the criteria that are used to approve a RFA in general.
    Will Headbomb abuse his Admin Powers to settle content disputes in articles he is involved in? Again, this is not a potential problem. It would be if Headbomb were very active on political subjects, because then there are usually two sides to an issue and for POV reasons you don't what an Admin to be a fanatical supporter of one side. In the case of scientific articles, an involved Admin is usually not a problem because the nature of disputes on scientific topics is usually completely different. Usually one side is wrong, the other side is right and you really do not want the side who is wrong to get any foothold in the article. That requires the Admin to have at least some background in the topic. The Global warming article is a very good example of how involved Admins (Connoley and Raul) can be very effective
    So, all this leads me to conclude that Headbomb should be allowed to become an Admin. I also note that there are only 3 votes based on valid arguments against, so perhaps this RFA should be closed and he should be given Admin status right now? Count Iblis (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Okay. Several problems here. Although being able to deal with personal attacks made against yourself in a peaceful way is a great quality, you need more than that to be an administrator. And all of the other votes are valid arguments. Admins typically need contributions in the project namespace. And lastly, this debate will last for 5 more days: it wouldn't be closed early unless everyone agreed it was WP:NOTNOW. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    While I don't agree with Shapiros that I need to be a "typical" admin or that WP:NOTNOW applies, I agree it is premature to close the debate. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW are not options since the candidate has indicated that they wish this to run to the end in order to glean feedback and criticism. Also, WP:NOTNOW doesn't require community consensus. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    And also because I think that there's a chance that WP:IGNORE might be followed. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

13. Support Good editor, smart guy. I really don't know much about adminship, but he's made every physics-related article he's been active on better. To me, that's the most important thing. Rracecarr (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Unwavering Support Wikipedia is meant to be a medium of delivering qualitative information to researchers and others. Therefore, I believe an Admin should have extensive content credentials, and you seem to have a good record as an editor and a contributor, good luck! Bigvinu (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support We need admins who understand the areas they edit in.--Poetlister (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Right, this is ridiculous. I expect to see the closing bureaucrat discount all the !votes that claim Headbomb was votestacking/canvassing based on his posting a neutrally-worded note on the relevant wikiproject, exactly in line with policy. Regulars on this noticeboard have figured out an easy way to get disproportionate influence on this project and their attitude to so-called "canvassing" (even when it is no such thing) is a transparent attempt to protect their self-appointed position against the rest of the editors who generally have better things to do. FWIW, let me say that (i) Headbomb has been posting so much to WT:WikiProject Physics recently that I didn't even notice his RfA post; I eventually clicked after following the watchlist header link to the RfA poll. (ii) Headbomb's decision to take over WP Physics is not necessarily guaranteed to endear him to the regulars there and in fact they have not been piling in in support. (iii) Headbomb has been doing good work nevertheless, both on individual articles and on galvanising a rather somnolent wikiproject, and has clearly been slowed down by not being an admin. Therefore Support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyLeahy (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (Drat: sinebot got there first. PaddyLeahy (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Oppose

1. Sorry - but you need to better use edit summary's - you hold use it around 75% of the time. Also, I'd like to see more experience in admin related area's (AIV, UAA etc.) Sorry, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   Note: Most of my recent edits have to do with the assessment of stubs and start-class articles. The work is very mechanical sometimes, and sometimes I hit crtl+v after clicking "submit", leading to edits without summaries. When you review about 3000 articles in two weeks, sometimes you cut corners. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Per the answer to question 1. Nobody requires the tools, and certainly not for a Wikiproject they themselves work on. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not really following you here. Could you expand? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Sure thing. From reading your answer to question 1, I get the feeling that you have a misapprehension on the role of an administrator. One does not seek out the position in order to help with Wikiprojects. The tools are janitorial and for the benefit of all Wikipedia. It's considered a bad idea to use the buttons on articles that you contribute to, likened to a conflict of interest. It just shouldn't happen. So, when you say that they'll aid you at Wikiproject X, I can only infer that you will use the tools incorrectly and that you do not really understand what it means to be an administrator. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   The tools are janitorial indeed, and while it's possible for admins to janitor all of Wikipedia, my janitoring will be mostly confined to WP Physics. Deletion-focused Admins aren't asked to contribute more to vandal prevention, and vandal-focused admins aren't asked to do review more AfD nominations. I want to improve and manage WP Physics, and deal with WP Physics problems. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   I have no doubt of your good intentions, I assure you. However, you are proving my point. There is a huge difference between administrators who confine themselves to certain administrator areas/backlogs and administrators who will concentrate their efforts on certain articles that they contribute to. The latter is not proper. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well I'll guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree then. No hard feelings.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose. Looking through your contribs, I see some really good work on the Physics WikiProject. However, your mainspace edits are somewhat lacking, only 850 out of 4000 edits, but that isn't too bad. However, looking at your experience in admin-related areas, you have 3 edits to XFDs, 27 RFPPs, 0 to AIV, and 0 to UAA. That's not a lot in those areas, so I don't have a lot to go off of when gauging your knowledge of policies and procedures in admin-like areas. You don't really say in this RFA which, if any, you plan to work on. Plus, your use of edit summaries isn't great. Also this edit was not the greatest idea. Useight (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think it should also be pointed out that of the 847 edits to the main space, 363 edits are to one article, List of baryons. That equates to roughly 42.9% of the user's edits to the main space. Metros (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   While not blatant canvassing (per the last line about not supporting), it was obviously not a good idea given the fact that it was a message intended to garner the attention of the Wikiproject participants. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   Who better to comment on his behaviour than the people who know him best? Naerii (complain) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Fair point, Naerii, but I'm guessing that these are individuals who view the candidate's work in a favorable light, and they knew that. Tacking on a "feel free not to support" doesn't really do much to alleviate my concern. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   So should WP:PHYSICS kept ignorant of this discussion and this discussion kept only to those with the page watchlisted or who hang around RfA. What steps do you think are permitted to inform editors of an admin candidacy? Can you point to what in WP:CANVASS has been breached by Headbomb's edit? From the guideline: "Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject" I am afraid your comment is in incredibly bad faith. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think anyone should be "kept ignorant" of anything on Wikipedia. Everyone is free to roam around and see everything, bar oversighted diffs and deleted content if you're not an admin. I think that's pretty fair. It's not discouraged to place a link on one's userpage directing them here, and it's certainly not a terrible idea to send "neutral" messages to people. However, the candidate knew full well what he was doing, and I think it was in bad taste. I also did not label it canvassing. I merely stated that it was a bad idea, seeing as people will most likely view it as partisan based recruitment/informing. May I remind you, and others, that I did not oppose based on this incident. I have my reasons. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'm fully aware of what canvasing is and how it can yield bias. I plan to mainly work on physics related articles, so my actions will mainly affect these people. This is not canvasing, this is making sure that those who would be affected are in the know. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   The problem is when adminship is granted, it is granted to a user across Wikipedia and not just for a single WikiProject, which is why a person's actions across the board are taken into consideration. Gary King (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   And if I start going crazy, then someone will request arbitration and I'll lose adminship. I don't mind being scrutinized as I don't have anything to hide, but I do mind having what ifs thrown at me as a reason for opposition. Go through my edit history and look for edits made of bad faith, you won't find any. The worst you'll find is listed up there in the rewrite of units of measurements, and that's exactly why I listed it. It's me at my "worse". Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think anyone ever wants to bring anything to arbitration. The whole point of RFA is so we don't have to. Gary King (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   You find wholehearted agreement from me here. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per WP:NOTNOW. While you have your heart set in the right place, the vast majority of your 4 thousand edits are in the past few months; thus, I think a few more months of experience is needed. Looking through your contributions, most of the past 1,500 of your edits are talk page assessments in the past week. I saw little or no participation in admin-related ares such as AIV, UAA, XfD and CSD. Also, I was looking at your talk page archives, and as recently as last week, your responses to editors regarding the MOSNUM dispute were rather abrupt and dismissive. This thread also concerns me based on a lack of complete understanding of simple guidelines such as the assessment scale. You have done good work, but you are not ready for adminship. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. My largest concern is that you feel WikiProject Physics needs leadership, and you say as an admin you'd provide that. Adminship isn't about leadership, it's about maintenance. It's a technical matter, not a social matter. Nothing prevents you from providing that leadership now. Many projects are well coordinated by non-admins. I'd prefer to see your need for the tools come directly from your work on the encyclopedia, not because you want to assume a leadership role and you feel the tools would help you accomplish that. I'm sorry to have to oppose this. I don't like opposing RfA's, and it's not something I'm prone to doing, but I don't feel comfortable with this RfA at this time. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   It's not that "as an admin, I'll provide leadership" and I never said anything like that. I've said that I'm taking leadership of WikiProject Physics (and no, this isn't some kind of authoritarian power trip, just go there and see who's worked on WP Physics the most in the last months and who took initiative to improve it), and that access to tools isn't what it should be. Editing {{physics}} is a matter of days, and you always have to go through a third party that's not really sure of what you have in mind. What could be done in hours takes several days. That's why I'm requesting Adminship which is exactly why one should request adminship—maintenance. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose Lack of edit summeries, and I don't see much activity in and around admin duties. Get more experience, and try again later. America69 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to lack of edit summary usage, lack of contributions to admin-related project pages, and per the discussion of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Comparison of temperature scales below. Whether one uses their admin tools in a small area or across the board, a lack of understanding of the speedy deletion requirements is troublesome. JPG-GR (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Does that mean that someone else has to nominate you in order to be successful? Not every sysop's RFA is nominated by another editor. Bureaucrat nominations (for the ability to handle RFAs) are self-requested. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA.--Koji† [User talk:KojiDude|Dude]] ^(C) 04:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Mind you, Kurt's opinions on self nomination don't seem to apply to himself, as witness his self-nomination for the BOT.  RGTraynor  21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

   You know, I explained quite clearly the difference between the two to you already; you simply chose to ignore it. I find it quite laughable that you claim to have a better knowledge of my own thoughts than I myself do. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps you've explained it to him already, but I have to say that to a newcomer, the difference ain't obvious. You run the bot, why shouldn't this be considered as prima facie evidence that you are power hungry? I mean, according to your logic, if the bot really was fit to be an admin, someone else would've noticed it, right?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

   ........"BOT" in this case meant "Board of Trustees".--Koji †Dude ^(C) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oh... Then it becomes even less clear how there's difference between the two.16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

   See [1]. Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

   So you only oppose self-noms because their exists another of way of doing things? As for self-noms being evidence of power-hungryness, you got a reference for that? I mean it really goes against the core of wikipedia values (see WP:AGF). Has anyone actually bothered to compare those who became admins following a self-noms with those who became admins following third-party noms? If not, how can you say that self-noms is evidence of anything? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

   Please don't paint the whole world with a broad brush. Vandals don't get barnstars, does it mean I'm a vandal since I have none? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Aubrey. Nothing I can really add to that except that going fr user to admin isn't like going from Private to Sergeant. You don't get any extra authority, just extra responsibility.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I really don't care about authority. What I want is the ability to handle the Physics Project and to allow people to have a readily availible contact for the Physics project. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose per JPG-GR, it's important to use the pages that gives admins a tiny bit more responsibility, such as WP:AIV, to show you know who to block/who not. BrianY (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose: While I feel the lack of edit summary and lack of some more months experience are good points I cannot support based on this comment. I feel that you definitely have good intentions and you may one day become a good admin but even with that last line saying "feel free to not support me" it seems you are still trying to get their attention and perhaps the results of the RfA could be skewed. While there is the argument of who better to comment on your edits then those that know you best, I think those that have no previous interaction with the user can give the best advice and insight since they have no prior dealings with the candidate and are neutral. You definitely don't seem power hungry and it doesn't look like you were doing it to have a better chance at becoming an admin, I would just prefer you have another RfA in a couple months when you have more experience without a comment like this. You're definitely on the right track, I just don't think you're ready yet.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    Are you saying that those who would be most affected by this decision should not be informed, and that telling them that I'll hold no grudge if they don't support me is a bad thing??? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    In an ideal world, of course we'd ask the people with most experience of a candidate to assess them. However, in real life that's open to favouritism and the like. Now, I'm not saying I think you were canvassing to get !votes from people who'd show favourable bias towards you, but it's the kind of thing that can happen in general. Therefore since people participating in RfA can't be expected to dig into the situation in each case and check nothing below-board is going on, the best solution is to discourage it in all cases so there's no doubt in anyone's mind that the candidate or their supporters are being improper.

    As far as saying you won't hold a grudge - I don't think Orfen was saying that's a bad thing in itself, just that that disclaimer on its own isn't enough to offset the potential problems with candidates asking people they know to come !vote - hence the word even in his comment. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    These aren't the people who are most familiar with me. Those would be the people over at WP:MOSNUM, which would probably yield 5 or so support and 2 oppose (Woodstone and Thunderbird2). The reason I didn't contact them is because that would be canvassing, plus whatever vote here would inherit the bias of the IEC debate (in my favour, but bias nonetheless). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    Olaf Davis basically covered my full stance. Basically I feel that the comment concerns me because as you say yourself you are "a very active editor on WikiProject Physics" and I feel that their !votes could possibly show favoritism for you especially if as you say they need an admin. As I said I don't think you purposefully meant to increase your support !votes with the comment I just feel that because of the comment the possibility could be there. If members of the WikiProject regularly visited RfA and noticed you were up for adminship and commented it is different than a comment being made asking them to be directed to this RfA even if they possibly don't regularly comment on these discussions. I feel you have the best intentions, the comment just concerns me and it's a reason I don't think you're ready yet. Yes, I would like to see a couple more months of experience out of you and a better edit summary but I wanted to address that comment especially since it concerned me since it was posted in a place you are active in. It's just not something I would like to see from a potential admin that is possibly skewing the adminship process. Again, I'd like to say I don't think you meant to canvass with that comment and I do feel you had the best of intentions, it's just something that concerns me.  Orfen  ^T • _C 06:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. I'll point out that my edit summaries skyrocketed to 100% as soon as someone pointed out that they wanted more edits summaries. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose per others and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Comparison of temperature scales. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Per Aubrey and Ave Caesar above. I'm not sure about this whole "leadership" thing, you don't need to be an administrator to show that you are capable of co-ordinating a project. Secondly, there are quite a few admins already on the WikiProject, so either the candidate has not researched his claim thoroughly enough (something I don't wish to see) or just made the statement in an attempt to make sure that he can become a leading member of the project. Stating above that "When you review about 3000 articles in two weeks, sometimes you cut corners" is the final nail in the coffin, as far as I am concerned. Rudget (logs) 14:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    Could you please not take the stuff I say out of context. The "cutting of corners" refers to me doing some very tedious and repetitive tasks mechanically. Assessing articles is such a task, and it's not one or two non-summarized edits in an article's history that'll wreak havoc on Wikipedia. Fact remains that a good chunk of the physics articles are now much more consistently assessed, it triggered some very useful debates on what's needed to improve these articles, and it'll allow the efforts of the Physics Project to be focused on the highest importance articles of lowest quality. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose I agree with Aubrey above, you keep saying you need the admin tools in order to lead the Physics WikiProject, but you haven't specified which specific tools you need and what you intend to do with them. Why do you need to protect pages, or block users, for example, in order to organize the WikiProject? Indeed, I'd be very concerned if you intended to use the admin tools for content pr project development - they're explicitly not for that purpose. As far as I can see, everything you want to do is achievable without the tools, and none of the tools are allowed to be used to achieve the aims you mention. Given this, I am reluctant to give you the tools. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I need specifics to allay my concerns that you intend to use the tools in an inappropriate way. That said, you are doing excellent work as a contributor, and I sincerely hope you continue with that. Best, Gwernol 14:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    See reply to the question asked by Metros. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but I remain unconvinced. When you say "I want to work on WikiProject Physics related stuff and coordinate the project's effort" it seems to me that you want to tools in order to help to organize the WikiProject Physics. That's not what the tools are for, and I see a real danger that you will use them in content disputes. Nothing in the tone of your reaction to the opposes in this RfA has improved my confidence that you have the temperament to be given the tools. Sorry, Gwernol 00:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    As I've said here, "I can seem very defensive at first, but it's the simple result of a very, very, strong dislike for conflicts that result of misunderstandings". Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

15. Very strongly oppose Everyone should take a look at the Talk page of the Joule-Thomson effect to see that anyone who signs his comments like this is just too juvenile to be an administrator:

    <span style="white-space:nowrap"><!-- -->{{#if:|<!-- -->[[{{{link}}}|<!-- with link -->{{#if:|{{su|a=r|p=|b=}}}}<!-- -->{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|{{overline|[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] { }}|[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] { }}<!-- -->{{#if:— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|{{su|a=l|p=— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|b=— [[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] / [[WP:PHYS|Wikiproject Physics]]: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week|Projects of the Week]]}}}}<!-- -->]]<!-- -->|<!-- without link -->{{#if:|{{su|a=r|p=|b=}}}}<!-- -->{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|{{overline|[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] { }}|[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] { }}<!-- -->{{#if:— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|{{su|a=l|p=— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|b=— [[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] / [[WP:PHYS|Wikiproject Physics]]: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week|Projects of the Week]]}}}}<!-- -->}}<!-- --></span> 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    On that same Talk page of the Joule-Thomson effect, Headbomb refers to a thermodynamics textbook as "the shit" ... which is another example of juvenile behavior. mbeychok (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    And see my reply there. If "juvenile" behaviour means making a mistake and fixing it as soon as you become aware of it, then yes I'm juvenile, and "juvenileness" is a quality all admins should be required to have. However, judging by your tone, that is probably not what you mean by juvenile. I would ask you to please stop personally attacking me and withdraw your accusations of being "juvenile". Is it really that hard to assume good faith, and to refrain from making statements such as "Headbomb, what a silly waste of space!!" and "anyone who signs his comments like this is just too juvenile to be an administrator". Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    My dear young man, I am not attacking you. I am attacking your qualifications for being an administrator. And what is your excuse for using obscene language in describing a thermodynamics textbook? Using words like "sh_t" in a posting is indeed juvenile. mbeychok (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    Lemme get this straight, you oppose my nomination as an admin because in 4000+ edits I said shit once (thrice if you count further instances of referring to said usage of said word)?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is not know for its inaneity Mbeychok, swearing is not an unheard of occurence and while the sig may be anoying he seems to have gotten the point. -Icewedge (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

16. Weak oppose: mildy WP:IU. Bwrs (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) But I have no objection to the canvassing; it's limited-posting, open, not seriously non-neutral, and more-or-less non-partisan in its wording. As another editor said, "Who better to comment on his behaviour than the people who know him best?" 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    There is nothing about the username that violates policy at all. Quite a stretch to believe otherwise. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    Offensive username? What? In the 8 years I've used this username, that's certainly a first. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

17. Weak oppose. User needs to grow and learn. MMMMMMMM (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    You know, I wish I could convinced of the contrary, but you're being terribly vague here. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose was neutral, but then saw this which he describes as how he typical handles things. I don't feel comfortable with an administrator who dismisses others like that. Metros (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    I really don't see the point in arguing with people who clearly aren't interested in assuming good faith, or who seems more concerned about getting on a high horse than to addressing the shortcomings of the article. I firmly believe that these discussion yield nothing but even more hate and should be ended as soon as possible. Perhaps if tell me how you would like one to deal with that sort of situations I would see things differently.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Was it necessary and civil to call the other user a drama queen? I'm not trying to make you out to be a Nazi. I'm just saying that you don't need to sink to personal attacks like that. As an administrator you're going to deal with dozens of users who "aren't interested in assuming good faith" and only want to fight your actions. You cannot deal with these users through personal attacks or other incivility. Metros (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Did you perhaps meant to say "I'm not trying to make you out to be a Nazi"? Olaf Davis | Talk 10:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Eh....haha, whoops...added that key word now. Metros (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    See WP:Dick. It's no different than calling a vandal a vandal. Like I said below, there is a difference between being curt, and being uncivil.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. Mbeychok launched an irrelevant personal attack on Headbomb, by taking a single word he had said out of context. Headbomb responded in an exemplary way. You really need to read the entire conversation including the previous sections to appreciate this.

    Let's look at the big picture of what happened during the last few days. I noticed that the article in question was in a bad state. I improved it by removing errors that had sliped in. But that led to resistance from some other editors who are actually not experts in this field at all. I then asked for help on the wikiproject physics page. Headbomb then visited the talk page and helped me out by taking the time to copy a few pages from a textbook. That basically settled the matter.

    Then a few days later Mbeychok comes along moaning and complaining for "turning the article into a thermodynamics thesis". No appreciation at all for actually fixing errors by me, writing the detailed Appendix, nor the effort Headbomb had put in by taking his time to type in the passages from Reif's textbook. All he could say about Headbomb's input as that he used the word "shit" (an not mentioning that it was just a joke by him).

    Most people I know would feel their blood boil when someone dares to behave in that way. Administrator or not, I don't think most editors would have responded in a particularly friendly way. Headbomb did manage to focus on the issue at hand, which was actually not how to improve the article, but it was the unacceptable statements by Mbeychok. Headbomb simply tells him to direct his comments to what he really said and to focus on the article. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose. I was leaning towards neutral (with moral support) because of the low number of edits, most occurring in the last two months, and the lack of edit summaries. But reading the candidate's responses to concerns here have shifted me over to oppose. An argumentative streak is not a good trait for an admin in my opinion. Sorry.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Weak oppose - I see nothing alarming, but the lack of experience (only four months), and the limited scope of those edits makes me conclude that it is not yet time --T-rex 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Headbomb does not pass my criteria for adminship. He was rather uncivil in his conversation here, even though I cannot say that the other user was being civil either, but you should still try to be calm in a discussion. --Chetblong (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    There is a difference between being curt, and being uncivil. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

22. Oppose Judging from this RfA alone, I could see that you're easily riled. I don't think that you will abuse the tools on your own but it will be easy for others to manipulate you to do so. Come back when you have more patience.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Useight. User is too inexperienced in areas where admins should be knowledgeable. Juppiter (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Wisdom89, Juliancolton, AubreyEllenShomo (∫ÆS), Koji Dude, Rudget, and Gwernol covered the ground, so I'll avoid repeating it all. — Athaenara ✉ 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose Wait to improve your edit summary usage, and your project count. Also a little advice. Get active in XFD and AIV. Those are admin-related areas that will further your knowledge. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Project count? And I'll point out that edit summary use is at 100% since someone mentionned they would like more use of edit summaries. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    I mean, in the Wikipedia namespace. Like XFD, ANI, AIV, et al. I meant I was looking for improved edit summary usage over a long period of time. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

26. Oppose per alot of folks here (pile-on, I know), and also due to responses to opposes. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose for many of the reasons above, but in particular this RfA reads like the intent is to gain some kind of special position of authority over one or more Wikiprojects. Furthermore, while the candidate's responses to the opposition here is largely civil, the volume of it comes across as being somewhat oppressive and tendentious and I'm not sure these are qualities befitting an admin. Shereth 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Apologies if it reads like that, but I assure you that I'm not interested in authority. My request is strictly for a greater accessibility to admin ressources to speed up things such as the update of {{physics}} without going through a third party (and slow response) and page protection, which is the reason of my low involvement at XfD and AIV, but higher at FPP (altough I probably I should have made a formal AIV request for IP 217.237.xxx.xxx, instead of making a side-request for IP blocking there, altough the folks at FPP didn't seem to mind). IMO, each active wikiproject has a need for a readily availible admin, and that is what I want to provide for at WP Physics. As for the large volume of my response to my opposition, I feel that one should always adress the concerns of his opposition in order to have the least amount of misunderstanding, and to make sure that no stones remains unturned, and to make sure that opinions are up-to-date. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

28. Just no. Nick (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose Sorry. I believe you are a bit inexperienced and haven't really helped a wide range of Wikipedia topics.--LAAFan 23:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose per confrontational comments on this page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    See reply to SheffieldSteel down below (7th neutral).Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

31. Oppose: Sorry, but you replying to virtually every oppose leads me to think you need to think about your conduct towards others in this RfA. (I did read the response to SheffieldSteel by the way.) Also, you don't seem to understand, per Q1, when to use the tools to good use. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't see how Q1 shows any sortage of understanding of when to use admin tools. Tools should be used to improve and maintain wikipedia. I want to improve an maintain part of it (WP Physics). Could you elaborate? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Not to say you don't need them, but I don't think you realise that you don't have to become an admin to run a Wikiproject effectively, which Q1 leads me to think. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that one does not need anything to run a WikiProject, but it certainly would help. For example, I recently made a {{editprotected}} request that took 3 days to answer which I find dreadfully slow. PeterSymonds was kind enough to semiprotect the page for a day, allowing me to modify the template and greatly enhance both the usability, and the usefullness of the {{physics}} template. It is also very hard communicate what exactly is needed, especially if you've forgot something that would only be realized by editing and testing the template yourself. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

32. Oppose. Concerned about approach towards adminship; it is not command authority. This is not an army, you don't need to be a 'commissioned officer' to 'run' a 'platoon' of WikiProject-mates. And you don't have sufficient experience just yet. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I assure you that I don't interpret adminship as being commisionned to do anything but make a responsible use of the tools where required. The reason why I think I should be the one to have them, is because I'm the one who's around. Were there an admin as readily availble as I am on the project, I would never even have bothered with an RfA. There is also some reluctance from other admins to get involved in highly technical topics, as Hiberniantears expressed.

    I didn't mention this before, but somehow it seems fitting to mention here. The tools I want to use are not those that an autocrats would want to "have it their way". I'm not intesrested in deletion-oriented actions, nor user-oriented action and would much rather have other people than me handle things like XfD and AIV, but rather in a greater accessibility to things like page protection, deleted page access, editing of protected pages such as {{physics}}, for WikiProject Physics, etc. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have this sense that you are still trying to settle in the WikiProject as the coordinator. Being a coordinator by itself doesn't really require any tools to lead, but more of skills in collaboration and co-operation. I am in the view that tools are a position of responsibility and trust earned by proving one's contributions and understanding of the project goals and policies, and just like everyone else they start small; it is hard for the community to accept handing the tools in the sense like rollbackers where one stretches out their hands to ask for it out of mere need and gets it. Yes, being small initially can be quite a bit of inconvenience; I'm sure if you give yourself a bit of time to start out as coordinator, do a job well-enough despite the inconveiences, it wouldn't be you who have to nominate yourself for the tools : your WikiProject-mates would be the ones clamouring to the community on your behalf for the tools! (Yes, I have seen examples) ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

33. Respectful Oppose - User appears to not understand what an administrator does. I looked over his contribs and he seems like a great editor, especially for the Physics Project. However, I don't see how him getting tools will help Wikipedia. Also, and this is minor, on the very talk page of RfA I've had some discussions with him, and I wasn't exactly impressed with his reading comprehension during a discussion. But I'm an asshole , so that didn't really weigh heavily on my oppose. To summarize: user appears to be a good contributor but adminship doesn't seem necessary, and it appears the user thinks admin = leader hat, user needs to learn what an admin is actually supposed to do. It's not a badge.

    Dank explains another reason support isn't wise for me right now - "Headbomb has a kind of "listen to me, I'm right" way of talking." That's just not good for an admin, ever. But Headbomb, good luck in the future, and stick with the Physics Project!! Beam 02:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

34. Oppose as per mbeychok. --Kaaveh (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Coming out of retirement using your alt account Oppose Nope. Just no. CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Uh...? I'm not quite sure I'm following you here. Are you saying that I am an "alt account"?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    No, I'm saying that I came out of retirement temporarily with my alt account to oppose you oppose. It's also you and you candidate having objects to 90% of opposes. CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

36. Oppose, not impressed with the candidate arguing with every other oppose comment. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    What a ridiculous objection! Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, but it's not really professional behaviour on the candidate's part. Admins should display less contradictory behaviour to those giving advice. Lradrama 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

37. Strong oppose - Per votestacking.  Asenine  08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Do you really think it's inappropriate to leave a neutral message, to people who know his work, asking for their opinions? As he says in the link you give, "feel free not to support me." I think we need people who are familiar with peoples' work to make decisions like this, and not just self-appointed RfA regulars. -- SCZenz (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

38. Oppose - Although this user has been an asset to the Physics Wikiproject, I am not convinced that this candidate really needs to be an admin. I know that this user has been extremely honest in his introduction and has even answered some questions that people were bound to ask, but looking at your overall way of working, I can't support you just yet. Please don't argue with this oppose, because you should take them all on board, and use them to improve yourself. That will do you a lot of good. Contradicting people won't get you anywhere. Spread your wings into more areas of Wikipedia too. Lradrama 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. A few of the statistics leave a poor taste (lower number of main space edits, 55.8% of the edits being since June 1st, e.g.). Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Comparison of temperature scales doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in full knowledge of policies and guidelines. However, I've chosen to be neutral right now because I do not believe that these fully relate to the user's stated need/rationale for the tools. Metros (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have to say that this old signature (old being 3 days ago), which is 1,013 bytes in size, was probably not a great idea. Metros (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the sig was done using about 240 characters, but the template substitution made things horrible. I changed it after I noticed. Second I was refered to MfD by Woody (an admin, no less) because this was outside "speedy deletion". I still don't get why deletion is so bureaucratic. It takes about 3 seconds to see this template should be removed from wikipedia (hence speedy deletion), yet many days to delete it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The template has existed like that for two and a half years and close to 100 edits. Speedy deletion would have been way too controversial for that. On top of that, within the deletion discussion, there was only one !vote and it was to keep it. Speedy deleting it would have been inappropriate, clearly. Metros (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I brought up the issue regarding the signature's length a few days ago, but I don't think it should affect this RFA too much. No harm done in this case, and I'm sure it won't happen again. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now changed to oppose. Metros (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral - You seem to take these opposes personally. You just have work on that. Aquarius &#149; talk 07:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't take 'em personally, although I can see why one would think that. I try to make a point of replying to everyone with concerns to give my version of things, so there's no "communication breakdown". This way of doing things always seemed to works for me when I was in heated debates (in both Wiki and real life situations). The reason why I'm "eager" and a little impatient, is that I prefer it when things are settled quickly so everyone can move to do other things. Being here to answer questions takes me away from WP Physics. Please don't mistake my impatience with the process as a sign of future admin "rogueness" (or rougeness for some), it's simply that I dread having to wait months before WP Physics get its resident admin. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I would like to support. You seem trustworthy enough and I am sure you would not intentionally misuse the tools. However, you do not appear familiar enough with WP policies, procedures and guidelines at this stage. In addition, WP:PHYSICS does not stand apart from the rest of the wiki. The same basic policies etc. apply there as well and you should be familiar with them to use the tools even in that limited subject area. Note: I was prompted to participate in this discussion by a notice on my talk page, should others wish to treat that as canvassing. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   giggy contacted you to discuss a comment you made, not I. Ironically your discussion with him was about how you didn't like people throwing canvassing accusations in RfA when they don't apply. Comments such as "I was prompted to participate in this discussion" does sound like canvassing a priori, and can certainly get a rise out of those people who won't take the time to look into who contacted you and why, especially when you make it sound like people could reasonably treat this as canvassing. Please be a little more considerate with your remarks next time :). Unless you meant that there was indeed canvassing going on, of course. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral This is a drive-by neutral to register my appreciation for Headbomb's great and irreplaceable work. I don't know how to vote on this one. For better or worse, WP:RfA serves as a community vote on whether someone is on the right path, and Headbomb is in some ways clearly headed in the right direction. On the other hand, like most scientists, Headbomb has a kind of "listen to me, I'm right" way of talking that works great for science and not always in article talk pages or XfD discussions. It would take me a while to sort out how to vote, so I'm going to weenie out. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Edit summary usage or an extended signature are easily actionable, but Headbomb is inexperienced and has an odd need for adminship. Next time, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral No behavioral issues and has good experience, two good things for me, but I'd like to see a bit more knowledge of policy, etc before I'd feel fully comfortable supporting. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Do you have any particular policy in mind? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well as Metros suggested, the signature policy, and there are exceptions to 3RR when people can violate it and not be blocked, for instance 3RR does not apply to BLP edits that remove unsourced negative content. Also, as Gary pointed out, Admin Coaching is before RFA, not after. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   The signature policy is sound and one that should be followed (and please note that I do follow it. I've explained what the signature situation was many times now). As for 3RR, I've "violated" it myself when dealing from vandalism/disruptive editing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it revert wars with IP 237.217.xxx.xxx (you can see a list of (mostly) disruptive edits here), for example on the Macintosh Quandra 950 article). I've requested an IP block several times, considering the history of these IP, which was granted, as well as semi-protection on several pages, which were also all granted. Here's 5 of them. I have a general dislike of blocking users, and usually mention "let's go to talk page" at my 1rst or 2nd revert (example). And I mispoke when I said "Admin coaching", I meant asking help from other Admins. I guess I saw a link to "Admin Coaching" on the RfA guide and the term stuck in my head somehow. Anything else you would like to know?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

6. With moral support, I recommend withdrawal for now I'm giving moral support because I can see you have the qualities and intentions without doubt, but you need more knowledge and understanding of what adminship entails. Be cool, take a couple of months to gain the understanding and re-apply; you'll pass with flying colors :) Vishnava _talk 01:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'd rather gather the most constructive feedback possible. If I fail, so be it, but I'd rather have a 20:100 with 15 of the 100 opposition votes made for (IMO) valid reason than 8:20 with only 5-6 opposition votes being valid (again IMO). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Only 5-6 valid opposition votes? I second Vishnava. It might be best to withdraw; you're hurting your chances in your next RfA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   You consider opposition based on my username being somehow offensive as being valid? You consider opposition based on a single use of "shit" taken out of context as valid? You consider opposition that does not even consider what the strengths and flaws of a candidate to be valid (self-nom = autofail)? I certainly don't. There are valid (although I disagree with it) opposition here, some don't like my style, some think I haven't done enough admin-related work, but it's not the overwhelming majority of the opposition, some think inexperience is an issue. Note that I'm not saying that valid opposition doesn't have majority right now—I threw 5-6 as a number, but I haven't counted so it could very well be 10 or 12. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   There are quite a few opposes that I disagree with but I only see 2 that could reasonable be described as "invalid". -Icewedge (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Actually I think you (Headbomb) can obtain the most useful "constructive" feedback through something like an editor review or so. Already the pressure of the RfA and your defensive-ness and perceived combative-ness are removing the "constructive" element of the feedback, as is evidenced by the above discussion of how many opposing arguments are valid or invalid. It is causing stress and hurting your ties with other editors. Be cool - the stress will do no good to anybody. Vishnava _talk 06:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Neutral I ought to support any candidate capable of slaying the dragon of the IEC prefix "debate", but concerns about the candidate's interaction with critical editors on this RfA are sufficient to prevent me from doing so at this time. Perhaps the candidate should gain experience in admin-related areas (e.g. AFD, COIN, SSP, EAR) and come back in a few months time when they will be opposed for not having enough content creation experience, being a manufactured candidate, and so on and so forth. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Like I said to Shereth:

   [Concerning] the large volume of my response to my opposition, I feel that one should always adress the concerns of his opposition in order to have the least amount of misunderstanding, and to make sure that no stones remains unturned, and to make sure that opinions are up-to-date.

   This worked fine for the IEC "dragon", so I don't see why it's inappropriate here. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

8. Neutral. I may come back to this one, but for right now I think you're too inexperienced. Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral based on my standards, he's very close -- but not quite there. Needs some improvement in edit summary usage, a bit of experience at AfD, and a second nom in two months' time, and I will support. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral Sorry Headbomb but I can't support at this stage but I'm also not going to oppose because I'm not comfortable with the pile on going on in that section. I think you are well meaning and have positive intentions for your contributions on Wikipedia, but I also think you need more and wider experience so that we can be sure you have a good grasp on policy. I hope this experience doesn't put you off and that you take on board any useful and sensible feedback you've received here and then go away and get more experience and then come back in a few months. You also might like to spend some time looking through successful and unsuccessful RfAs so that you can get a better insight into what people are looking for in candidates at RfA. Sarah 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral. A disappointing fraction of the opposition is for spurious reasons, but I still think this user needs more experience to be an admin—there's a whole set of rules and pages that admins need to know that others don't. And honestly, I would rather see you continue to do the good work you're doing on physics articles than try to please everyone here at RfA. Being an admin is often just a distraction from the real work, believe me. -- SCZenz (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2008 (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.