User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 12

Iverson/Billups+McDyess trade
Hey, please hold off on editing those articles until the trade is actually announced. I know it's imminent and it's being reported as a done deal, but a trade isn't a trade until it's announced by the teams/league. --Mosmof (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the radio program I heard made it sound like it was a done deal. Thanks for catching it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: CWii's RfA
Alright, thanks. I didn't know he had withdrawn when I cast my !vote. Have a nice day! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem it hadn't been tagged properly as withdrawn so unless you saw the line where he withdrew, you wouldn't have. I just wanted to have the !count as of the time he withdrew, so I removed two late comers.  Like I said, it failed, no need to have extra opposes/neutrals.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seemed there was for some reason a lot of confusion during the withdrawing/closing moments, it was even accidentally closed as an RFB. Useight (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO... ooops, that is my bad... I cut and pasted the wrong template...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)talk:Balloonman|PoppaBalloon]]'' 17:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I didn't notice the withdrawal statement, but assumed the lack of archive tags meant it was still open.  Stwalkerster [  talk  ]  17:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, like I told Erik, it was withdrawn, but not yet closed by somebody. CWii didn't know how to close it, but I didn't think it should get more opposes/neutrals due ot his not knowing how to close it.--- Balloonman  ''[[User

Your note
Well, apologies for removing it - but as you indicated, there was no indication of the purpose, and they were all appropriate candidates for deletion. Look, I appreciate that you might be frustrated (and I'm sorry for my part in that) but there is no reason whatsoever to say "...use a little more discretion than simply deleting without looking first." Please do not presume as to my intentions and actions without asking first; it only creates unnecessary tension. I would have been happy to discuss the matter. --Ckatz chat spy  06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The indication for purpose would have been the fact that they were part of an RFA page, I believe you as an admin, should look at that rather than accept that the page should be deleted outright. As an admin, you should know that sometimes deleted content is recreated to ask potential candidates about it.  Heck, as an admin, you should be looking at the article history to ensure that the version you are looking at isn't the result of vandalism or other mischief---if you had you would have relaized that there was only one editor, which should have prompted the question, why did an single user (let alone admin) create an article with a speedy deletion tag on it in one edit?  Too me, that is carelessness on your part.  Yes, I bear part of the blame for forgetting to nowiki the speedy request, but this is a perfect example of why I don't like speedy deleters---too often, things are deleted that shouldn't... which creates harsh feelings/bad vibes.  People who engage in speedy deletion should be among the best, and should be extra diligent, unfortunately, I didn't see that here.  If this bothers you, then I hope you take it to heart in the future.  As an admin who engages in speedy deletions, you need to remember how those actions affect others.  People who engage in speedy deletions can do more damage to the project than the vandals they are fighting if/when they turn a potentially productive member off by tagging/deleting an article that should be.  Plus, while each of them was probably deletable, none are patent nonsense per the definition at CSD.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus RfA
I've moved your general comment to the RfA talk. You might want to also post it to WT:RFA. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rfa nom
Hi Balloonman, after thinking about it for a week or so, I've changed my mind, and am willing to accept your nomination whenever you feel ready to nominate me. I've been helping out at WP:RM lately, and it's getting really frustrating not being able to do my own db-moves! And there's so much stuff backlogged at CAT:ADMINBACKLOG. Let me know how you'd like to do this. Since I haven't really been hanging around Rfa for that long, so I'll follow your lead on stuff relating directly to the Rfa. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'll take a closer look at you this weekend.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, thanks for that great nom. Just one tiny thing: the link to Clue is a redlink.  Is that intentional?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've filled out the answers to the questions. Do you have any last comments before I take it live?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry to jump in, I 'fixed' the link to WP:CLUE . Was that intentional ? If so, please free to revert it . Thanks --  Tinu  Cherian  - 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... guess I wasn't clueful ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm taking it live now. Here goes! :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I had to..
Once I caught wind of a shadowy cheerleading section on IRC that was hoping for my failure, or at least decided that it would be colorful to cast joke !votes in the neutral section, I had to withdraw, regardless of what my percentage/chances were. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Had you stuck it out, you might well have kept your head above the magic 75%. Had I stuck out my first RfA I might also have scraped through. But who wants to scrape through? If there's a significant body of opposition, whether right-headed or not, the honourable thing to do is to withdraw. The joke !votes by some who ought to have known better may even ultimately have worked in your favour and swung things around ... but hey, water under the bridge now. Take RfA off of your watchlist, and leave the hounds of hell to their own devices. With very few exceptions, wikipedia has the administrators it deserves. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a shame, I didn't realize that was going on... which is why I'm not a big fan of IRC... the more I think about it the more, I like Keeper's practice of not even having email enabled.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I don't use IRC. I don't want to be involved in the drama and forum-like conversations going on there. I just want to edit Wikipedia, so that's what I do. Useight (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Email
I've emailed you. Feel free to check it out. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Coaching review
In my most recent nomination, you criticized my coaching as being a way to pass adminship rather than to be a better administrator. This made me look at my coaching strategy page, and I've been working on improving it and making sure it does not violate GAME. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review my work and give any suggestions for improvement you may have in your spare time. My strategy page is located at User:Malinaccier/The four phase system, and you may post any suggestions or comments on the talk page (or just edit them into the page if you wish). Any help you'd be willing to give would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Still looks like cramming for an exam to me, nothing at all to do with being a good administrator. In other policing jobs, and indeed jobs in general, applicants are put on probation. What's so different about this one? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not meant to be a probationary period, only a way to educate a user about policy. I would not be opposed to using a modified version of this as post-RfA admin coaching and training (not unlike the probationary period you suggest), but I'm really asking for feedback as to whether I am teaching for the test.  What's different about my coaching system are my third and fourth phases.  In the third phase, the coachee is exposed to conflicting areas that they will be asked to comment on as an administrator. By asking tough questions and asking followup questions from different angles, this helps teach the coachee to look at disputes and other problems objectively.  In the fourth phase, the coachee is given an opportunity to get out of the structure emphasized in the previous phases.  It allows the coachee to develop on their own, and to learn through real-life experiences rather than ones manufactured by the coach.  Basically, the fourth phase is meant to develop the individual behind the account instead of putting forward a factory-made candidate.  Really, the answers coachees will receive in this stage are the most important in the whole system. Malinaccier (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it's not meant to be a probationary period. I'm complaining about the fact that there is no probationary period for your pre-prepped RfA candidates, or indeed for any other children who put themselves forwards as admin candidates. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone sufficiently motivated can be trained to pass a test. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there Malinaccier,
 * I'll take a closer look at your essay later, I'm busy right now. But you might want to take a look at this essay. I wrote it a few months ago when people were opposing because candidates went through coaching.  Also, take a look at my coaching philosophy.  Without looking, one of the things that I haven't liked about your coaching is that you seem to have check list:  Have you done XY and Z?  If not, go out and do it.  To me this is what gives coaching a bad name.  I know from talking to people who frequent GAR/FAC that they hate it when a person comes to their area's and makes an uninformed comment on an article, then disappears only to discover that the person was doing so in an effort to fulfill an admin coaching requirement.  These drive-by assignments don't help the coachee become a better admin or wikipedian, it shows that they can figure out how to contribute to a specific area, but it doesn't show that they can do so productively.  I encourage my coachees to pick 2-3 areas to establish "footprints" in.  I want them to make several contributions per day in those areas and revisit their previous contributions.  I do this because it allows others to help them grow.  For example, under the check the box approach, a candidate may go the XFD and make 20 edits---fulfilling the check the box approach requirement.  Unfortunately, 25% of their contributions were incorrect interpretation of the policy/guidelines.  Because they fulfilled the requirement they may never return (and the coach cannot know the intricacies of every area/policy.)  Under my approach, they make the same 20 edits, but when somebody else (who is more familiar with the subject than me) responds, *I* learn something new as does my coachee.  (Take a look at Ling Nut's coaching page, he made a comment and somebody else gave information that neither Ling Nut or I knew about.)  By establishing footprints, you get others involved in the coaching process and you can see how they really interact with the community on a continuing basis.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Balloonman. I think you're right that a coachee needs to concentrate on areas they enjoy (rather than ones that will get them adminship), and I think that I could integrate this idea into my coaching system by asking them what areas they wish to go into and then only using the sections in the second phase that pertain to those areas. I'll start thinking about this more in depth, and will await your review (don't go out of your way to get the review done, take your time :))!  Thanks a lot, Malinaccier (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also treat coaching as a long term editor review... my job as coach is to review the candidate 4-5 times during their coachimg to give them feedback.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Malinaccier, another thing that I've noted in the past about your coaching, you tend to recommend that your coachees get involved with RfA. I never make this recommendation. In fact, if asked, I would probably frown upon it. Watching RfA's to get an idea of what to expect is one thing, but participating as part of coaching---Never. IMO, by advising people to get active at RfA's it looks like you are encouraging them to ingratiate themselves with the people involved with the RfA process. This has two problems, first it looks bad and makes EVERYTHING they've done at RfA's questionable. Second, it doesn't seem to work. I've noticed that people who get involved with the RfA process a month or two before running for Admin seem to have more problems than those who never get involved. Heck, one of the criticisms of the RfA process is that the people at RfA tend to support their own. EG there is a notion that the people who are regulars at RfA will support other regulars. Which is possibly true. The problem is, that this creates distrust from those on the outside. The proof of this are the RfA's for regulars that take off like wildfire, 15-0. Then the non-RfA regulars start showing up with other comments/criticisms. Often with comments related to the RfA regulars and how they are trying push one of their own through. I've seen enough of these snide comments, that I've come to realize that participation in RfA is NOT a good training ground for admins. It may be necessary for 'crats, but not for admins.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already stopped doing that as I had realized the complications. I won't reccomend against participating at RfA, but I will be careful not to push the subject if it comes up. Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the approach I take, I don't tell people "no." Because that might be seen as training to pass the RfA, but I don't encourage. I let my candidates pick their 2-3 areas because I want them to want to do it.  (Although, I encourage at least one of those three areas be in a high profile adminly area---Helpdesk, AN, ANI, etc.  I also encourage that at least 2 be outside of the "article building" arena.  Eg, while working on the MOS may be helpful, people want to see that the candidate has the ability to help with policy, not English Grammar.)  --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The requirement of two to be on non-article building tasks makes sense, but with the amount of candidates interested in vandal fighting only, I can only wonder how to develop their article building without forcing anything upon them. Thanks for your comments so far, Malinaccier (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Wow, thank you so much for your attention regarding my possible adminship. It isn't something I actively seek so I will accept your frank assessment that my process edits have been too controversial to survive the process and will remain happily mop-free for the foreseeable future. There is a lot to contribute and plenty of reward as a non-admin, both content edits and occasional article patrolling. If you have any insights from your four-hour review of my work regarding anything I can do to improve my work here as a non-admin I would value your insight there too. I'm learning a great deal all the time on how best to interact with people online... especially AGF, even the most aggressive editors often have a point and a sincere intention behind their objections and it is often best to listen and respond respectfully rather than show them the hand.Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Moral Support
I did not intend to move the vote to the support section. By "moral support" I meant maybe next time, but I don't think the candidate has enough article writing experiance at the moment. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's what I wanted to know... usually, moral supports are in the support section... but usually on RfA's that are clearly failing...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aervanath
I've replied. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which closed as successful a few hours ago. I'm incredibly flattered that anyone would spend four hours (admittedly interrupted by election results) to read through my contributions. This is especially the case given you were not originally intending to support and took the time to make certain of your view. Thaks also for the CSD question - it gave me the chance to reflect on the importance of correct tagging and the harm that can be done if an article is mistagged and then carelessly deleted. As a result of your question I will be taking additional care with any CSD's -- I would never want to be in a position to have driven away a potential good editor through carelessness or a poor reading of policy.

The admin reading list also makes clear there's a million foolish errors to avoid, and if (when) I make any mistakes feel free to stop by with a gentle push in the right direction. Thanks again. Euryalus (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, like I said in my support, when I started reviewing you, I thought for sure I would oppose... but the thoughtful way you handled yourself and demonstrated the way you thought, convinced me that despite a few mistags, that you could be trusted with the tools. I personally HATE speedy deleters, and only support the best, so consider yourself (IMO) among the best.)  To prove that, you can look at the top of this page and you'll see where I was chastizing an admin for being over eager in speedy deleting.  Before deleting, I encourage you to take a look at what is being deleted and look at the history.  Another problem I've seen on occassion is that the article is vandalized, the vandalized version gets speedied because nobody checked the history.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN
Hey, you forgot to add your sig to your comments there. I was going to add the "preceeding unsiged comments added by Balloonman", but then I didn't. Useight (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * tx fixed.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm also curious as to how this one will close. I made my first edit at 05:51, 30 August 2008. This RFA has already taught me many things about the RFA process. In future RFAs, I'll focus on many factors rather than just focusing on article work. Aervanath's RFA will close at 12:35, 15 November 2008. I may change my mind. Let's see. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The number one thing to know about the RfA process is that it is broken... but it's the best system that we have, and so far nobody has been able to propose something that is A) better and B) will get the support to change it. An illustration to make that point.  Scott gave a strong well reasoned oppose---one that with other candidates, I've made myself.  He made it early on in the RfA process, which means that people saw it early and have latched onto.  If the RfA had 20 or so supports before Scott made the exact same oppose or if he had made a weak poorly worded oppose, then this RfA might be flying through the system  A strong early oppose, IMO, has undue weight in the RfA process because it ultimately is a !vote.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * B-man, I'm sorry for some of the things I said about you on Aervanath's RFA. After analyzing many RFAs and performance of admins who have received admin coaching, I think admin coaching can be useful. I've worked on articles, participated in ANI and vandal fighting, but there are still many places on Wikipedia where I've never visited! Wikipedia is huge! I just analyzed Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 2, and I think if he were to keep quite for some time, his RFA would have easily passed. At one point it looked unstoppable. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll find that I am one of coachings biggest advocates and one of coaching's biggest critics. When done right, it can be a tremendous boon.  Take a look on my essays that I referenced Mal to a couple of sections above this one where I explain my coaching approach/philosophy.  If it is done wrong, then I am at the front of the line opposing.  Coaching is NOT a pass RfA Free card in my book.  I hold people who go through coaching to a higher standard. It is not for everyone, and I try to guide people as to whether or not *I* think coaching will help or not.  As for your apology, thank you, it is accepted.  I too agree that Ecoleetage hurt his own RfA chances.  Before I started coaching, I wrote an essay on how to pass an RfA.  One of the things that I talked about that kill RfA's is getting into conflicts or going overboard in the defense of candidates.  I responded a little more to you than I usually do in RfA's.  But again, thanks for the open mind and reconsideration.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the RFA process is quite deep. My understanding has improved. According to WP:LOA, we have about 950 active admins on Wikipedia. The project is growing, so we need more admins. I may change my !vote tomorrow. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I switched my !vote to neutral. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah :-) Like I've said before, I've been known to oppose for lack of mainspace article building, but that is generally with people who have poor communication skills and use bots. I'm willing to make exceptions for most of my criteria for somebody who acts like an admin---people who act like admins are more likely to get my support regardless of what they do.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 19:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. And Aervanath's RFA may pass. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * His is going to come down to the wire. If I were to close it now, I think it would pass, but the next 24 hours are of utmost import.  When I look at borderline cases, such as this one, I think the latest trends are important.  Right now, the trend has been to support.  He hasn't received a new oppose in over 24 hours.  That IMO means something.  If, however, between now and the time it closes, he only receives opposes, that too would carry some weight---although the rollercoasterness of this RfA might overcome any trendiness.  It will be a close one... I'm just hoping we can get him to WP:100 (and pass) ;-)
 * This is an interesting RFA. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath's RFA.
B-man, Aervanath's RFA has passed. At one point, his RFA had less than 70% support. You changed the momentum. It is a classic example of how a nominator can change the outcome of an RFA. Nice job. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nom
Balloonman, you did an absolutely heroic job on my nomination. I'm especially flattered by this since I don't believe we had ever interacted before I posted asking you for coaching. The thoroughness of your evaluation, and the diplomacy which you displayed when dealing with opposing editors during my Rfa show that you are a real credit to the encyclopedia. I'm really honored to have been helped by you, and I truly consider myself in your debt. Yours, --Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 17:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, and no, prior to your asking for coaching we had never encountered one another. I just liked what I saw (despite the low article count) and thought you would make a good admin.  I have no problem nomming people I think will do a good job.  I didn't agree to nom you until I spent enough time reviewing your edits to know that *I* felt comfortable doing so.  Like I said in your Nom, when I look at your Talk Page/contributions, I see somebody who acts like an admin... to me, that is key.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 05:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks again, anyway. Hopefully I'll continue to act like an admin now that I actually am one. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 08:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hola
Thanks for seeing that. I think the server had a lag or something, or I totally messed up big time. Thanks again. ^^ G ! B B i 3 <sup style="font-size: 9pt;color:#169">I4m 733t0rz  01:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail
Let me know what you think! And tell me to how to best go about what I mentioned if I decide that's what I want to do. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey NJA, I didn't get your email, could you resend it?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Resent, I hope it went through. I also had it send me a copy as well this time and I just now got it. Thanks. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to shoot you an email, I still haven't received anything from you.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied a couple days ago. I'm looking forward to it. Thanks again. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#9966FF">247 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Review me for potential RfA?
✅ Balloonman,

Iridescent suggested that I seek out you as a potential RfA nominator. You've probably got the best handle on my conduct during the Sarah Palin wars, and I'd like your honest input on whether you think my conduct in those disputes is consistent with what you'd expect to see in a potential admin candidate. Jclemens (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there J, I have a generally favorable impression of you, so I will be happy to take a look at you. I have 3 or 4 others that have sought me out this week (or that I've approached), so it might be a few days before I can review you... depending on the candidate, I might spend 2-6 hours reviewing nominations.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm in no particular hurry, but I recently passed my own self-imposed prerequisite, qualifying for a WP:CROWN, and hence am making inquiries. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI I'm starting now ;)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will continue tomorrow.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to run in December
✅ ...and I'd like your advice on whether it will rub people the wrong way if I put a notice of that on my talk page starting now. I know it's not canvassing per WP:CANVASS, but is it considered rude or arrogant? Foolish maybe, but that's okay, I'd be happier if people who know my work drop by my RfA, regardless of what they say when they get there. (Feel free to reply here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put an announcement on your talk page/user page that you are thinking about running in December, what I would suggest is putting yourself up for an Editor Review. You can then announce the editor review on your talk page (and even in your signature.)  Then when people go to your Editor Review, you can explain that you are thinking about putting yourself up for rfa in December.  This accomplishes your goal while staying completely in the bounds of what is propreity.  If you put an announcement that you are thinking about running, while technically not canvass, it might be frowned upon and garner opposes due to "I think you are too intent on becoming an admin/power hungry."  That might not be what you are thinking, but it is how it might be interpretted.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Beautiful, thanks. I'll get more XfD experience, then ER. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User who sent me email whose user name begins with an H
✅ I received an email from somebody whose name begins with an H(?) asking me for a potential RfA nom... I read the message and must have deleted it by acceident... I can't find it. Could you resend it to me.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it have been User:Thehelpfulone? I pointed him your way... Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is who it was. Thanks.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I obviously need a break. When I saw this hit my watchlist, I thought "OMG, Hemanshu is finally talking to someone!"  MBisanz  talk 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I doubt if hemanshu would be a strong admin candidate at this point in time...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong candidate for getting his arse kicked IMO. Sad that so few are willing to step forwards and kick a failed admin into touch. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Review
Hey Balloonman, you seem like a very intelligent admin that (as best as I can remember) I haven't been involved with in the past. When you come across some free time, would you perhaps consider stopping by my review. Thanks in advance,  Grsz  11   →Review!  04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * starting now--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow missed your comment on my talk
✅

Finally caught it  Enigma  message 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship In fact, you actually said that one couldn't pass an RfA after accumulating 15k edits. 04:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't know where... that would be a great link to add!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You said it on WT:RFA a few months ago.  Enigma  message 05:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scout and Guide logo poll
Please vote in the poll at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Project_logo which closes on November 20 Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Got Me
Fair point! Pedro : Chat  20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nomination
✅

Hi Balloonman,

Sorry about not waiting for your nom, thanks for the comment about the Editor Review, I've removed it from my signature.

The Helpful  One  19:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * no problem, as my momma done told me, you snooze you loose! GL, I suspect that your rfA should pass. it has an impressive array of supporters---and I'm note talking about numbers, but the people who are supporting are great judges of character.  I wish I had started reviewing you already to get my name up there, but alas, I can't do that til this evening.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman! I just came to leave a quick thanks, after I saw this comment you made - I'm quite touched really. :D <font face="Verdana"> Stwalkerster [  talk  ]  19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say, BOTH, I meant one... when one is respected... no seriously... you're welcome. ;-) --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA coaching
Hey Balloonman, I'd like to take a run at RfA in a couple of months and was wondering if you'd be willing to coach me. My primary area of involvement has been CSD/ new page patrolling, though I am starting to branch out again, and even if you can't take me on for full-time coaching, any guidance or assistance you can give at this point would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at you, but it might be a few days before I can. I've been busy in RL and have gotten a lot of requests lately.  I will tell you up front, that if one of your areas of interest is CSD, the we probably won't be a good match.  I am not a fan of CSD'ers... I see CSD as a necessary evil.  When I review people with CSD, I'm particularly critical because I believe a careless CSD'er can do more damage long term to WP, than any vandal.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay great! Let me know when you've taken a look. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was COMPLETELY and I do mean COMPLETELY unexpected... thanks... I feel humbled.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fatality's RfA
Sounds good to me. - Bobet 15:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing a "not"?
"The fact that he worked in a stressful area where people are prone to throw labels and epitaths around should be grounds for failing an RfA"

... If there's not a missing "not", then I'm screwed, am I not? :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not screwed... BTW, it really would have been easier to write an strong oppose than a strong nom... a strong oppose wouldn't have taken me 10 hours!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'm like an onion.  I have many layers, and make people cry for no good reason. ;-) I think I'm going to put it up tonight.  I will be around for ~6 hours, and then can check tomorrow AM before I leave. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's up--let the arrows and stones begin.  I was going to joke that I was putting on my asbestos underwear... but I actually have a set of turnout gear. As you might imagine, that means I've been on the Internet a good bit longer than I've been a firefighter. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't let an RFA stress you out too much. I've only done my preliminary assessment, but you look like a strong candidate. Useight (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi Balloonman.

A user,, asked me if I would consider nominating him for adminship. I'm n ot really sure if he could pass or not. Here are a few links to a summary of his edits on various tools. wannabekate, SQLbot, wikichecker, "original" edit counter. He has around 4500 edits, so it won't take too long

Most of my thoughts about it, as well as a (very detailed) self-appraisal are on my talk page here. If you do decide to give your opinion on it, can you put it on my talk page, just to keep the discussion in the same place?

Thanks! J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 17:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello. 125.239.172.106 vandalised my page here  and here. I was hoping you could do something about it. Thank you. America69 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you had issued him a warning, I would have blocked him. Also, remember you can go to wp:AIV, that will get a quicker response than asking a single admin.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was bold and softened the warning. The IP is making good contributions outside of an odd fascination with America69. Hopefully he'll give up on America69, or else the user and/or talk page may have to semi-protected, because I'm sure he has access to other IPs.  Enigma  message 06:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * HOW DARE YOU... oh, wait, that's fine. But yeah, I looked at all of his edits and wanted to see if they were all Vandalism.  If they were, I might have blocked without the warning... but since the IP is doing some decent work I felt the warning was worthwhile.  My guess is that there are two people at the IP.  One who is constructive, the other who isn't.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus against policy...?
Hi, Balloonman. Earlier today I ran across this and this. To my eye, both of these seem to violate WP:NOT, go against several provisions described in WP:LISTCRUFT, and — perhaps of greatest concern — appear to be nothing more or less than a wholesale grab-and-partially-formatted-dump of the information at www.fueleconomy.gov (without the nicety of alphabetic listing or vehicle categorisation sections). Both of these articles have been deleted, both deletions have been contested, both articles have been restored, and one of the articles has been re-nommed for deletion with a result of keep. It looks to me as if most of the arguments put forth by pro-keep !voters boil down to "I like it", and many of the !vote justifications evince little or no understanding of Wikipedia protocol and policy (e.g. "it's not "listcruft", whatever that means").

What might be the appropriate action to take, if any? I don't believe these articles belong, I don't think they can be brought into line with policy and protocol; I think they ought to be deleted. But I don't know if there's much good to be done by reopening a closed debate, even if the standing conclusion seems to have been based on very shaky ground. I would appreciate your thoughts; I'm asking one or two other admins, as well. Thanks! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on J.delanoy's talk page.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Didn't want it to be too easy
Hey. He looks like a good candidate and if you are right that he is probably the strongest admin candidates you've ever nominated, then I'm sure he'll be brave enough. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He is probably also the candidate that I vetted the least... but everything I saw kept screaming out, "he's ready. he's ready." Of course, now I've probably jinxed him ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Three unrelated topics
Thanks!--otherlleftI can take the heat|undefined 17:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you consider doing an editor review for me? (asked because I saw the list at the top of your page)
 * 2) What is with all these edit proof pages?? Nice job on that (commented because I tried to add my name to the list at the top of your page)
 * 3) Do you have a sense of humor? (The real reason for this post; I have something in mind if you do but don't know you so I don't want to presume)

Editor review
Hi Balloonman,

I opened up my editor review from August, and was wondering if you'd be able to give me a good review. I feel I've changed a lot since then, and I know how thorough you are when checking over people's contribs, so I know you'll give a good review. I'm in no hurry whatsoever though, take as much time as you need. Thanks, and best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you're really bored...
You once wrote somewhere you had been contacted by an 8 year old who wanted admin coaching. Well, what do you expect with a username like yours ;-) I'm not interested in coaching, nor in opening up an official editor review. However, if you're really bored I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you think of my work every now and again. Nothing major, just an opinion or two to give me an idea how I'm doing. I've still got you in the back of my mind after my "Majorly episode" and I value your opinion. If you don't have the time or energy, no problem, this is just an informal request. Nothing more. Thanks and happy editing, <b style="color:#8080ff;">  SIS </b>  00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ABF
Of course, nominator would be one affecting factor to voters on RfA, but this ABF is really funny. From your nom statement, I got very bad image on the candidate; You're attacking one of disputers in the public place, with whom the candidate conflicted. The first thing for me to do was to check the candidate's and the mentioned user's block log, ANI/AN3 report, RFC etc. There was almost none. He is not a vandal, nor indefinitely blocked, but why you linked and labeled the editor as POV pusher as antagonizing him? The US election campaign made moderate editors easily turn into POV pushers in my observation. On the other hand, I know you're admin-coaching Ling.lut and if he comes down for his RFA, I would definitely "strongly support" for him regardless of the unpleasant experience with you and whatever you would say for him because I know his great contributions in some of my editing areas. Honestly speaking, I've been always uncomfortable with your nom statements and voting comments: there has been "you" more than candidates. Besides, you're relying on "numbers" in the diff. Well, you know Wikipedia is not a democracy. I said only "one" person said a very good and calm advice unlike others' illogical threats.--Caspian blue 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bombs away!
I've transcluded. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As Franamax mentioned at WT:RFA, he's got a new tool that gives a more detailed edit count. It's truly great.  He just ran it for me, here: User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b/Dank55.  It's a new tool, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with the results.  You're welcome to add the results to my RfA if you want to, and we might want to start running it for all RfA's, I don't know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dank55's contributions
Salutations, I see you are the nominator of Dank55's request for adminship. I have been looking through the editor's contributions and found them oddly scarce in deletion discussions; a handful of comments in the past six months. Before asking the candidate in the RfA I wanted to check the nominator in case I have missed something. Any insight appreciated. Danke, the skomorokh  20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this was one area where he was light, but I felt that his contributions in other areas (notability, verifiability, RS) offset that deficeincy. I don't believe in one size fits all candidates.  We actually discussed this a little on his talk page.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks for the heads up to the discussion; I may have a question or two after all. Regards, the skomorokh  21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NP--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
<font face="Trebuchet MS">design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Struck it rich...(figuratively)
You seemed to have had great luck finding (and nominating) great RfA candidates recently (not that you hadn't in the past, only more so now). *Prods* What's your secret ;) (JK). Good work though. <font color=#808080; span style="font-family:Calibri, Myriad, Trebuchet MS, sans serif;font-size:100%;">RockManQ (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A belated reply
Dear Balloonman

Thank you for your moderation in dealing with me a few days ago. If you've forgotten the incident, which you may have, it's in your November archive under the heading "Vandalism." I just wanted to clear a few things up. Firstly, there is only one person at this IP. If you want to understand why I've focused on America69's page, go to User talk:Justin Herbert where I explain my reasoning. Incidently, I think your user page, with a single political userbox stating your position, is a model of how things should be done, as opposed to what America69 or Justin Herbert do. Thanks again for your fairness.125.239.172.106 (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalizing talk pages/userboxes, even if you think it is inappropriate to have them on one's page is not appropriate. If you think a user box should be deleted, you have options.  Take to to wp:MFD and nom them for deletion.  Yes, I agree that some people go overboard---which really does hurt them down the road.  If they run for admin, it hurts.  When they want to claim objectivity/npov, it hurts.  But, user talk space is an area where the rules are relaxed.  Changing other people's boxes is not an acceptable option.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for being a reasonable person. I realise it's not right to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. So don't worry, it won't happen again. I will be very interested to see what happens if America69 ever decides to run for admin though...

I admire your restraint and politeness further when I compare your response to that of Justin Herbert. I realise he was annoyed by what he did, but he doesn't need to go around calling me scum, especially since it seems to be motivated less by the fact that I vandalised than the fact that I disagree with his views. If I had been a Republican vandalising a pro-Democrat userbox, would he have described me as scum in his reversion? MAC475 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the edit where he calls you scum (and I'm going to bed---too tired to look) but I will state that your message May the Republican Party disappear and never come back! is a little strong and you should consider removing it. (That doesn't mean that  Justin/America's user boxes are all ok---I didn't look---but your message may be seen as crossing the line.)  Also, I noted that you aren't from the US, America's user boxes are a hodge podge of conservative/liberal boxes... I had to check his history because I can't believe that a person who supported some of conservatives he says he supported can also support some of the liberals he claims to support---very eclectic and weird.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 08:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me that put the reply up. I found my brother using my account. I've changed the password to something stronger. I'd say he was trying to embarrass me. He doesn't think much of the wiki. I'll keep an eye on our IP to make sure he doesn't vandalise any more userboxes. I can understand his frustration, but he shouldn't have done that.MAC475 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in an edit conflict with you, so I didn't see your reply. On reflection, my user page is an example of what my brother's complaining about. I'll change it. About America69's userboxes - they're some of my bro's handiwork that Justin didn't pick up. They should all be the other way round. I'll go and fix it.MAC475 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to it. Hopefully, that's the end of it. I hope you have a good sleep - it must be very late where you are.MAC475 (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your feedback
Thanks for the feedback on my Admin coaching page. I've posted a few replies, but most importantly I wanted to say: Have a safe trip to wherever you're going. Have a good Thanksgiving and I'll talk with you next week. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#9966FF">247 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look at them later, I'm going to bed.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Something else for coachees to do
I'm on a mission these days to recruit copyeditors for FAC and GAN, where copyediting is loosely defined as being able to make some kind of improvement: some people know professional style guides and/or Wikipedia's guidelines, some people have a good feel for Wikipedian article layout, some people are good writers, some people are willing to check spelling and grammar. It's all good. If people are looking to pass their RfA ... and especially if they're already under the wing of an experienced coach ... I'll be happy to look over their shoulder if they want to make themselves useful at, and learn the ropes at, FAC and/or GAN. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary. People should do some copyediting because it will help them pass their RfA? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * People should do work because it will help them pass their RfA, at least in the eyes of the people who base their vote on how much work they've done. I don't have an opinion what that work should be, but if people want to learn how to copyedit, I'm available. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's easy to misinterpret, I'll try again: I'm not trying to set up some new way that people can game the RfA system. What I'm saying is just the opposite: we all agree that RfA should be, and I really think that is largely is, simply a vote on how much useful work people have actually done, not a vote on how many special hoops they jumped through or who they sucked up to.  "Work" involves learning and applying policy, and writing.  Copyediting is useful work.  It's a little controversial because different people have different ideas of what makes an article better, and there's a lot of consensus-building and community-building in front of us before I think someone could say "I'm a copyeditor" at RfA or any place else on the wiki and have people know what the heck they were talking about and agree that that's a useful thing, but that's the point.  I'm working on it.  If you know other people interested in working on it, point them my way, please. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I encourage people to work on articles, copy editing is not a skill everybody has.... lord knows, i can't do it. I also encourage my coachees to find their own niche... I don't believe in the drive by coaching or the "specific tasks" coaching.  I will mention it as a possibility, but I never tell people where to work.  (I give guidance on 'types' of areas.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "... we all agree that RfA should be, and I really think that is largely is, simply a vote on how much useful work people have done." Actually no, we don't. Not unless your definitions of "useful work" and "vote" differ substantially from mine anyway. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Echoing Malleus, I know, but if you really think RFA is a vote on how much useful work people have done, turn these redlinks blue, then sit back and watch what happens. – iride  scent  17:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * I'd also include this one in that list of extraordinarily useful editors. Useight (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and as we're specifically talking about copyediting here, this would also make for a fine spectacle at RfA for anyone who believes that it is anything other than a popularity contest. Or to be more precise, a lack of unpopularity contest. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people don't try to get accepted by some groups, and sometimes the groups don't accept them for reasons of their own. That's not an argument that RfA is broken; that's an observation that we're human.  I'm not the expert on RfA (obviously :), and I understand that there will always be deep, dark politics in any adhocracy that I'm not clued in about, but if there was something going on that actually biased the outcome of RfA's on a regular basis, I'd be able to find it by going through the RfAs.  Except in special cases, which everyone knew going in were special cases, I can't find it. Wikipedia does about as well with politics as any adhocracy, and that's a high compliment. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the fact you can't find it simply means that you're not looking in the right places? Apart from which your position now appears to be inconsistent and contradictory. Earlier you said that "RfA ... [is] simply a vote on how much useful work people have actually done." Now you seem to be admitting that instead it's a popularity contest, requiring acceptance by a very small self-selecting group of editors who de facto decide on the criteria of the day for admin candidates in a semi-secret process. That may be perfectly acceptable to you, but it seems highly dubious to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi Mr Balloonman! It's an honor to finally meet you. Would you be willing to give me admin coaching lessons? I really want to and I can't find anybody who is taking students or is even giving lessons all together. If you could let me know it would really be appreciated. Thanks  SteelersFan- 9 4  17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at you when I get a chance... I've added you to the list above.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)