Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Balloonman


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

Balloonman
I have decided to close this as it is clear that it would take an act of God for me to pass right now. Mbiz's oppose was probably the one that convinced me that this is the time to close, he is entirely right, I didn't dig into his question at all... which indicates that *I* am no longer taking this seriously enough. His oppose also bothered me enough that now is the right time to shut it down. It bothered me not because he was wrong. He was right in opposing because I did give it a softball answer and that is in part because I've gotten enough feedback and nothing really new is coming in. I think I've given people the opportunity to speak and to share their input---although, if you haven't spoken and would like to leave me a note I am open to honest constructive feedback.

I did want to thank everybody for keeping it civil and constructive; with a few exceptions, I felt that the opposes have legitimate concerns and rationales behind their opposes. There are a few that I felt were simply inaccurate and/or personal, but by and large, even those with harsh words, were civil and constructive. Some of which I intend to address, some of which I don't think I can ever address. (Eg I can't change the past, I can only hope that some of those who opposed based on the DMHO fiasco will someday be able to forgive me for it.) Some of which I've been struggling with on my own---EG my role in RfA's.  As I said in my Nom, I don't like the role I've been playing there... and my views on the project have changed some. I think this RfB may have other impacts in how I view RfA as well... we'll see. I don't really know where/what will happen with me at WP:RfA, but I have been backing down from that area lately, and will likely continue to do so.

What will I be doing at WP? I honestly don't know. I'll probably float around for a while, but whatever happens, it is not because of anything that happened here. I was expecting this RfB to fail, I had zero intention of submitting it until I realized that we had 4 'crats resign or take extended breaks over the past month. Will there be a RfB_2? Who knows. I'll probably take the advice of some of the opposes and explore other crat areas a little more, but right now I'm dubious about RfB_2. Some of the opposes are the type that indicate 'cratship is not in my future.

Again, I hold no animosity towards anybody who opposed me, and hope to earn your trust/respect in the future. Again, regardless of how you !voted, thank you for your time and attention. As I do not believe in Thankspam, I will not be going around thanking everybody individually, but I might ask for some follow-up thoughts/advice from some of you---particuarly the opposers.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Final (37/36/15); Withdrawn by candidate at 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

- Over the past month or two several people have asked me if I was thinking about running for bureaucrat. In every case, I responded in the negative for several reasons. First, I didn’t have any experience at WP:CHU or WP:USURP. I have now spent some time in those areas and realize that those are probably two of the easiest areas to work. 90% of the cases are fairly straight forward. Those that aren’t typically have a number of clerks/crats/bots asking questions and pointing out potential problems, this minimizes the chance of making mistakes.

The second reason that I wasn't thinking of running is because of the RfA that shall not be mentioned. For those not familiar with it, if you were to make a list of the top 10 most deplorable acts on WP, my actions in that RfA would be at the top of that list! Last spring, I nominated a person for adminship whom I firmly believe should have been an admin long ago. I would have sworn he was one long before I met him. I agreed to coach him, despite his knowing more about WP than me. For while he is extremely knowledgeable about WP, he his prior RfA’s had been killed because of accusations of incivility, immaturity, and irresponsibility (despite his being a crat on a sister project.) In May, he asked me to accelerate our time line and nominate him for admin. Against my better judgment, I did so, despite believing that his RfA would fail for various reasons. Please note, while I felt he should be an admin, I felt his RfA should fail. Instead, he garnered over 300 supports and relatively few opposes. He was flying through the process, when I sabotaged him, by withdrawing my nomination and explaining that I didn’t think he should pass the RfA. (Primarily because he had two recent occurrences of incivility, that I felt should have precluded his becoming an admin at that point. They weren’t.)  I acted inappropriately. First, I shouldn’t have nominated him. Second, once said nomination was out, I shouldn’t have stabbed him in the back. For those interested, I did email him to let him know about my intention to submit this.

I almost retired for WP at that point, but several people encouraged me to stay on. One of the people who did so was the person in question. His public forgiveness of me proved to me that he deserves the bit. My behavior at his RfA was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made on or off Wikipedia. Since then, I have used him as a role model for my behavior. You see, he failed a previous RfA because of inappropriate behavior at with the Good Article project, but committed himself to redeeming himself there and became a valued member of the GA project. I figured that if he could regain the trust of the GA community, then I could do the same with the RfA community. I decided that rather than leave RfA’s, that I would redouble my efforts to redeem myself at WP:RFA. Are there people who still hold that instance against me? Yes, I expect to see opposes. In fact, WJBscribe basically told me a few weeks before he left that he would never trust me. I blew it, but I’ve been working to make amends, and am committed to the project. Lest anybody think I'm running now because of his retirement, I've emailed WJB letting him know about this. I share this because I’m not perfect, I blew it, and I tried to make amends. I don’t want to understate the severity of what I did. I can only ask the community to look at the rest of my track record. Has there been a time before or after where I have messed up? Was this a single lapse in judgment, or part of a trend? I think most people trust and respect me, otherwise, I would not throw my hat in the ring.

In all honesty, I had no intention of running for ‘crat. It has only been in the last week or two that I’ve even started to consider an RfB. What’s changed? Over the past month or so, our ‘crat positions have been dwindling at a rate faster than our admins. WJBscribe retired in December, Deskana just placed a note on his page saying that he was tired of the people here, Nichalp had to take a break, Dweller is backing down from his activities (although he says he plans on continuing his ‘crat responsibilities.) When I look at who might be interested in stepping up,  they are dwindling as well or have failed in their attempts. There aren’t that many people who have the experience, trust, and interest necessary to run.

The other reason why I am interested is because I don’t like the role that I’m playing at RfA’s. I’ve worked hard to redeem my reputation. I don’t participate in every RfA that comes along. People know that when I !vote, it is not done without some in depth thought and analysis. I’ve literally spent up to six hours reviewing candidates before !voting. This is too much of my time wasted on one aspect of the project. When I oppose, my voice often becomes one of those that people are citing. (I think people pay more attention to my opposes, than they do to my supports.) At first, I was flattered when people cited me in their reasoning, now it distresses me. I don’t like the role that I see myself playing at RfA anymore, but want to continue to be involved there. Becoming a ‘crat would be a means to shift my focus in an area I enjoy working.

This has gone a little longer than I would have liked, but I can’t throw my hat in the ring without addressing the Elephant in the Living room. Despite my mistake 8 months ago, I would like to think that most of you trust and respect me enough to support me in this endeavor.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants: 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?


 * A1: Yes, I think my experience at RfA and WT:RfA stands as testimony for my understanding the process.  Additionally, I’ve written two fairly well received essays on the subject:   How to pass an RfA and  How to nominate somebody for RfA.  Finally, I’ve been an admin coach and every one of my coachees (with the exception mentioned above) has passed and my current nominations are at 15 passed, 1 failed, 2 withdrawn.  So I think I understand the process fairly well.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?


 * A2: I’d like to think that most people, despite my faux pas, trust me and my integrity.  I don’t always get it right, but you can rest assured that I try to.  I know that there are contentious RfA’s, but that is where giving clear rationale is important.  For better or worse, I’m not afraid to share my thoughts/concerns.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?


 * A3: One of the areas where I am surprised is at how sought out I am for input on various parts of the project.  Earlier today, somebody whom I didn’t know,  approached me about a proposal on the vandalism project.  I’ve had so many people asking me for feedback that I’ve started a sub page for people seeking feedback.  And that doesn’t even include them all.  Over the past six weeks, I’ve been working on making a positive impact on Speedy Deletions an area where a few people are giving the entire process a bad rep.  In that time I’ve received five barnstars for my efforts there!

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?


 * A4: Yes.  The only place that I haven’t spent much time is WP:B/RFA, but that is not because I’m afraid of Bots, but rather because I am a programmer (in a specialized computer language that nobody knows.)  I write code all day long, the last thing I’ve wanted to do during my free time is review bots.  If the community decides to trust me with the tools, I have no doubt that I would be able to learn the process there without much difficulty.  Heck, I suspect that if this fails, I might be drawn there anyways.  As I said, my interest in RfA have been waning lately.

Optional question from Kristen Eriksen

5. How would you determine consensus in evaluating a request for adminship disrupted by off-site canvassing based on personal attacks, unsubstantiated assertions and conjecture about the nominee?
 * A5: Tough question, but timely in light of recent events with two dhrama filled RfA's. Let me try to address them from two perspectives.  1) Off-site canvassing:  This is a serious charge that can be done for both the benefit and detriment of the candidate.  This allegation has been raised at several RfA's.  Without hard evidence it is a hard one to know the reality of the situation.  I mean, you cannot assume that the 20 people who have never participated in an RfA are there because they were canvassed or because they know the candidate from someplace else.  In fact, unless there is convincing evidence of canvassing, we have to assume good faith in those who participate.  2) Personal Attacks, unsubstantiated assertions, and conjecture: We often hear that the RfA process is broken.  I think if you talked to 10 people familiar with RfA, 9 of them would tell you that it is broken.  But ask them what is wrong with it?  You'd probably get 9 different reasons why it's broken.  But one thing that I've come to believe is that the RfA community is pretty good about policing itself.  When personal attacks, unsubstantiated assertions, and conjecture appear at WP, they are often met with a firm response from the community.  Some people call this badgering the opposes---and to an extent they are correct---but the role of the 'crat isn't to assert his/her opinion, but to evaluate the community's consensus.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 07:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from iride  scent 

6. Do you see a COI between your role as an admin coach (both as an "official" coach and as someone a lot of wannabes come to for advice) and the 'crat role? Assuming this is succesful, would you handle "can you give me some advice about my RFA?" requests any differently?


 * Two part answer here: First, I don't see a COI. The key is as a crat your role NOT to participate as a crat in an RfA that you would have a COI.  Eg, if a person is a friend/enemy/coachee, then the crat shouldn't be the one who closed them.  Similarly, if the crat gave extended advice, the crat shouldn't be the one to close it.  Second, part of my reason for applying is because of my changes in attitude towards the RfA project---and my role there.  I said it in my statement above, I don't like the role I am currently playing.  Regardless of how this RfB turns out, my involvement with RfA will be changing... if it passes, I will still be there, but in a different role.  If it fails, I probably won't be as involved.  And that won't be a response to this RfB, the RfB was a response to my seeking something different to do.  As for coaching, while I do think there is a place for it, I don't enjoy it like I have in the past.  I currently have two coachees, but I haven't given them the attention they deserve.

Optional question from NuclearWarfare

7. Since someone will ask them anyway, here is the Danny questions. How would you have closed the following Requests for adminship and bureaucratship? One word answers are fine. If you want to indicate that they go to 'crat chat, please explain what you would have said there.
 * Carnildo 3 61%:
 * ^demon 3 63%
 * Krimpet 67%:
 * Danny 68%:
 * Ryulong 3 69%:
 * Gracenotes 74%:
 * Riana's RfB 86%:

Optional question from Terraxos

8. Is the current level of support needed to pass an RFA (approximately 75%, with some discretion either way) too high, too low, or about right? That is, is it currently too easy or too difficult to pass RFA?
 * The discretionary range is generally held to be 70-75%--but I am not opposed to crats going outside of the 70-75% range if theresi solid reasoning/rationale. Crats who venture outside of the accepted 70-75, can expect to have some people complaining.  I am particularly in favor of promoting when below the 70% range if the opposes lack merit.  The default position should be promotion.  Depsite what some people say below, I am on the record of advocating greater involvement in evaluating the strength of arguments---as shaped by community input.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from TomStar81

9. In your own words, explain what you consider policy to be. Do you consider policy important enough to disregard other factors in matters relating to the xfd process and the rfa process? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not clarifying the second part of the question. Before asking these first two questions I read through the whole rfb, and some discussion has been made in both sections of your perceived unwillingness to look at factors in the spirit of policy rather than by the letter of policy. The second part of this question therefore was meant to account for times when common sense, or comments concerning editors who frequent the page, or external evidence, or something of that nature would suggest a break from the letter of a policy to preserve the spirit of a policy. In such cases, do (or would) you consider the letter of a policy important enough to disregard other factors that may come to light in areas like xfd and rfa that appeal to the spirt of a policy?
 * A: Policy is the guidance that the community as a whole has agreed to. They provide the framework that helps us work together and not have individuals running roughshot over the project.  I'm not sure of what your second question is asking.  Are you asking if I believe in IAR?
 * Thanks for clarifying the question. The answer is of course.  I've gone on record in the past in encouraging our 'crats to use their discretion in evaluating consensus and strength of argument.  A recent example could be Enigma's RfA.  Do I agree with the way EVula closed it?  Yes, I think that was the proper course.  BUT if EVula had closed it as passing and cited the disruption in the RfA as part of his decision, I would have supported that as well.  Part of the job is to evaluate strength of argument---which really means evaluating the strength of the opposes (support IMO is the default position.)  Are the opposes all WP:Idontlikeit or is there real meat to the oppose?  If it they are all IDONTLIKEIT, that is one thing.  If the opposes can rationalize a reason, that is a different story.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

10. In you own words, define and explain IAR. How would you use this principle on Wikipedia? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A. IAR is arguable the genius behind WP. It is the most important policy we have.  That being said, it is also the most abused policy we have.
 * IAR is the policy that says that we are to ignore the rules if the rules don't make sense. The reason why it is one of the most important policies is because it prevent wikilawyering.  If we didn't have that rule, there would be people who would impose their vision in every area because they would know and understand the policies better than everybody else and would out wikilawyer them.  IAR enables the newbie to say, "I don't know what the rules are, and you may have over 100,000 edits, but your ideas don't make sense.  Let's ignore the rules and look at common sense."  The example I like to point to is the Military brat (U.S. subculture)---the article that got me into WP.  According to policy, we shouldn't have an article with a dab (U.S. subculture) unless we have another article without out the dab.  Unfortunately, doing do would create more problem than ignoring this rule---see the talk page for detailed reasoning and the background on this.
 * IAR, however, should be the exception. When your standard reasoning includes "Ignore All Rules."  Then there is a problem.  IAR should be the exception and used on a case by case basis.  There should be reasons to ignore the rules and why the exception needs to be made.  This is the problem that I have with some CSD'ers.  Not that they IAR, but rather that they have incorporated IAR as a right to do so on a repeated basis.  When CSD'ers use IAR to justify the deletion of this article on Ultraman,this article on Peru,this article in Yiddish, or this one on shadowrun you have to wonder.  All of those were deleted and 12.9% of the people who took the survey think that IAR should be invoked routinely.
 * If you are calling upon IAR routinely then something is wrong. Either the policy needs to be changed, or you are doing something wrong.  If you can't get consensus to get the policy changed, then that should be a sign that your execution is being misapplied.  IAR should not be the norm, the norm should be what we as a community have agreed to.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

11. If this rfb was successful, would it effect your decision to be an admin coach? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My decision to be an admin coach will not be affected by this RfB. That being said, my interest in doing so has been on the decline for a while.  I haven't accepted a new coachee in a few months and the two that I do have, while I am committed to working with them, haven't gotten the attention they deserve.  I've taken the long term approach to coaching---I do not see coaching as a crib sheet to an RfA.  In fact, I've treated it as a measure for people who are serious and committed on the project.  But I had decided before Christmas that when I finish working with them, that I won't be taking any new coachees for a while.  Changes in my editing pattern were going to happen regardless of what happened here---they were already in flux.

Optional questions from MBisanz


 * 12. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, Ugen64, and WJBscribe were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2008. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results.  Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation.  Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?


 * A.
 * Francs2000:
 * Optim:
 * Eloquence:
 * Ugen64:
 * Danny:
 * WJBscribe:


 * A I'm not going to dig into these enough to give each a complete review, but I will give you my governing principle. First, as far as I know, we don't deactivate inactive crat accounts.  I know we don't deactivate inactive admin accounts.  Now, this means that if somebody left wikipedia and didn't resign their rights, that they could then come back later and have the tools without discussion.  So the question becomes why would somebody resign their tools?  The two obvious answers are: 1) to avoid the temptation to come back and 2) security reasons.  By giving up their rights, there is less chance of somebody hacking into an account and running amok, thus when somebody leaves WP, the prudent thing is to give up the tools.  Thus, unless the person left under any sort of controversy, my inclination would be to restore the tools to them.  In otherwords, based upon the framing of the question Francs and Ungen would need to go through RfB again.  I would have to take a closer look at Danny, was he promoted to Crat via an RfB, or was the title confirmed upon him as part of his employment with the Foundation?  If the later, and he had to give up the position when he left, I *might* ask him to undergo an RfB as well---but I would have to understand the situation better.  Eg was he a true crat or was his being a crat derived solely from his employment to do work related activities?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Balloonman:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

 * I consider that RfA in the past and don't hold animosity over it. I would not oppose over that matter. I am neutral (though I hate that section and would prefer it to be removed) because I can't find it in my gut to support, or oppose. Giggy (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For those who don't know giggy = dihydrogren monoxide.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 09:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that Balloonman is a bad choice to be a bureaucrat for a few reasons. Firstly, his very strict adherence to the rules (CSD comes to mind), completely throwing IAR out the window (which is partially represents the administrator's own judgment independent of the rules), leads me to consider a very strong possibility that Balloonman will promote by the numbers and not by the actual comments and arguments said. Balloonam didn't even give any criteria for promotion in Q1. Not even a mention. In fact, we don't really know if Balloonman knows how, and has the judgment, to use privileged functions, which brings me to my second point. Balloonman barely uses admin tools: his last 50 deletions go back November 16, 2007, and doesn't have 50 blocks or protections to speak of. While Balloonman uses the tools once in a while, I would prefer to see more active usage from a prospective bureaucrat (active being at least cracking 40–50 logged actions per month), since that would negate the risk, especially in Ballonman's case, to barely use the tools (like ignore CHU—this has happened with at least one newly-appointed crat). With logged actions, Balloonman can't make up his mind with deletions. Here, Balloonman correctly speedied it, then suddenly decided to PROD it, but NawlinWiki quite correctly IMO speedied it again. I am even more confused by this series of deletions and restorations. In fact, I'm not sure what to make of it except that Balloonman doesn't seem to what he's doing. This directly relates to being a bureaucrat since I see Balloonman flip-flopping on 'crat actions too, and making admins is not that easily reversible (you can't say in a close decision "you're promoted!" then try to get the brand new admin desysoped five minutes later). A bit as an afterthought, the CSDer of the Week just scares me (you get an award for having no independent judgment). Thirdly, Balloonman seems to hold very strong opinions that would skew his interpretation of an outcome, and Balloonman certainly likes to discuss the RfA process, and his if he was a bureaucrat, his comments would hold a bit more weight to them. (You may say that in discussions functionaries hold the same influence as any other, ie no cabalism. I strongly disagree: I've noticed that admins and bureaucrats' comments hold more weight, and when we're talking about influence to RfA, the first de-adminship proposal to actually gain some attention and not be thrown the "perrenial proposal book" was made by EVula, a bureaucrat.) Although this relates a bit less to being a bureaucrat, Balloonman seems to be a user who has raised the "criteria", for lack of a better word, at RfA. For example, at his criteria page, he demands near-perfect "speedy deleters". No wonder users don't pass RfA anymore (and no prize for guessing why the CAT:CSD backlog seems to have risen recently, although it's nothing like when I was promoted, when the backlog often went over 300 pages.) Of course there are many other reasons as to why RfA has produced less admins, and I may be totally wrong and unfair if I give part of the blame to Balloonman. To resume, Balloonman will not make a good crat, as he adheres to the rules much too strictly, thus not really showing the judgment required of a bureaucrat, he barely uses the admin tools (which leads me to question whether he'd use the bureaucrat tools), his strong opinions may skew RfA closes, and on a more minor note, his influence with his criteria are one of the reasons IMO why RfA has stopped producing admins (perhaps many good users are scared to nominate because of that too).  Maxim (talk)  13:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So... should the above be taken as an Oppose vote, then? Terraxos (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments:
 * CSD'ers need to be near perfect. As there is no real monitoring system once they become admins, we need a way to ensure that the people we are promoting to adminship are not going to go around causing more damage to the project than the vandals they fight.  We have too many careless CSD admins arleady giving that part of the project a horrendous name.
 * I'm afraid we're going to agree to disagree on the issue of CSD—my delete log (and by extension, count) probably said that beforehand—but I still believe that not following the letter of the rule is important and I expect some similar decisions like that before becoming a bureaucrat.  Maxim (talk)  02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Maxim, there are so many occasions on CSD when one ignores (or used to ignore) the hardset rules and used common sense instead. Sure there were some errors made, but that's inevitable in every situation. I think you can only start to understand what CSD is actually like, once you've done an evening of clearing it. You don't appear to have ever done that, and when you have speedy-deleted something (correctly), you reversed yourself claiming you broke the rules (the article in question was complete nonsense and should have correctly been removed on sight).  Majorly  talk  02:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for giving me part of the blame, no you would not be totally unfair---which is honestly part of the reason why I am seeking a change. I do hold a higher standard, but my standards have changed.
 * As for the use of tools. No I am not an overly active admin with the tools.  Yet, we have people calling me an effective admin none-the-less?  Why is that?  Because being an admin isn't about pushing buttons, it is about attitude and commitment to the project---even a number of my opposers recognize that I am a positive for the project---even if they oppose the idea of my becoming a crat.  Using the tools is not an indicator whether or not I'd use the tools in the future---think on it this way, part of the reason I like to see activity in Wikipedia Space is because people who are active in an area before an RfA are more likely to be active there afterwards.  A pure article writer is unlikely to get involved in XFD once they get the tools.  Similarly, a person who is active at CSD, but never participated in RfA is unlikely to be involved with promoting admins.  And if they are, they have no track record.
 * You don't need admin tools to participate in meta-discussion. If one barely uses the tools, I believe that they should consider resigning them. In your case, you're not so inactive that I'd suggest you resign, yet I fail to see a compelling reason as to why anything will be different if you had 'crat buttons (plus our admin shortage is much more urgent than our 'crat one.)  Maxim (talk)  02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the AFD, that I deleted, I am not afraid to admit that I can make mistakes and grow from them... I would be more open to CSD'ers if they were willing to recognize mistakes as well... but I see too many simply saying, it was a justified speedy.
 * I wish you didn't throw a red herring with CSD'er carved out in it. The rest of your reply didn't make sense to me. With AfDs, this relates a bit to CSD: you don't seem to have much, if any, closing discussions, which is exactly what you're volunteered to do, except it's more contentious and drama-filled, as a rule of thumb. If you're planning to run for RfB again (you need 270 supports in total to have a chance to outweigh the 30+ oppose you have already), I strongly suggest closing deletion discussion. See right now, the only recent example I have to review is one when you flip-flopped quite a bit.   Maxim (talk)  02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I found Maxims comments very convincing, no doubt about that, but I remain in support. However, would someone from the opposers like to explain to me the rationale of opposing because of "an unhealthy obsession with RfA"? Although bureaucrats clearly have roles elsewhere, RfA is a big one and there are very few people out there who match Balloonman in his dedication to this area (whether he enjoys it as much as before or not). I would agree if he lived here 24/7 and provided nothing; however, instead he goes elsewhere on the project, but when he's here he contributes more thoroughly than anyone I know. His reviews all candidates who request it, or who need it, in a manner I've never noticed anyone else doing. So, I'd love some clarification. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At Avi's RFA the community (me included) moaned that we don't see enough RFA participation. Now we moan about too much (an obsession). Dear me. We seem to want flawless candidates, yet let look at our community past level of success in getting flawless candidates - now resigned and frankly with some bits hanging over his head when he left regarding the whole FT2 thing.  got the bit then cleared off (not a fault, but why ask for it if you're not going to use it). Mind you, we did get  threw (no thanks to me) and  and they are about the best of the current bunch. At WT:RFA lots of people spend plenty of time bemoaning the fact RFA is to harsh - but apparently RFB is an opportunity to let rip. Don't get me wrong - I won't support Balloonman because his admin tool use is too low (specifically I see very little evidence of closing consensus based discussion, wich a lot of the opposers seem to have missed as a good rationale) but some of those in opposition are just bashing for the sake if it. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with too much RFA participation. It's Balloonman's ideology that bothers me most, and his whole approach to it. I could spend all day talking about RFAs - I'm probably about as obsessed with it as he is. But I could never support a bureaucrat who thinks adminship is a big deal. There are of course many other issues mentioned below, such as dodgy speedy deletions (it's all very well criticising CSDers for mistakes, but it appears Balloonman has never spent an evening clearing CSD), very little tool use completely and of course the whole DHMO RFA thing - I brought up another RFA, because it's not the only instance I found poor judgement from him.  Majorly  talk  20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think obsession is a poor word choice - I have an urge to visit RFA and the talk page regularly, but I would describe it as "interest". It is, of course, contextaual - half and hour three days a week is not really an obsession. I too am as interested as your good self and BM. As Wikipedia is a hobby, one would assume I'd be allowed to be wihtout people thinking it unhealthy. Pedro : Chat  20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - Without any hesitation whatsoever. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: As above, definitely.  C h a m a l  talk 06:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I've come to know Balloonman in recent months. I rarely participate at RfB, but this is a special candidate, so I'm here to offer my support. — Realist  2  06:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 07:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I disagree with many things Balloonman says, especially in the RfA area. But the basic job of a 'crat is to interpret consensus and use good judgement in flagging/renaming. My support lies in the fact that I know Balloonman's heart is in the right place, we need more crats, and I trust him to do these things correctly. It has no relevance to my opinion regarding his RfA standards, or his overall view of what adminship/cratship should be seen as.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree with a lot of the oppose comments (Majorly, specifically), I feel they are more based on uncomfortable feelings regarding promoting this candidate (which I admit to sharing, unfortunately), and not on how they will perform.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Although I have never developed a criteria for RfB candidates (most probably due to their rarity) I believe that if I did develop a criteria for RfBs, Balloonman would fit the criteria perfectly. When I move from place to place around the wiki-world, I frequently see Balloonman providing much needed insight into issues, particularly at WT:RFA. Even after the "incident" with DHMO, he managed to stay with a project, and make up with DHMO, something I probably wouldn't be able to do (truth be told, if I were in Balloonman's position, I'd have unplugged the computer and hid under the table for a long time  ). I fully support Balloonman in this RfB, although I have my doubts about it being successful, as many Wikipedians aren't as forgiving as I am. Good luck Balloonman!  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel there is no one out there with a greater knowledge of the RfA system that Balloonman. How he isn't a bureaucrat already is a mystery to me. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support Whilst I don't agree with all of Balloonman's views, I usually find his ideas thought provoking... ;) Balloonman puts an enormous amount of effort into his Rfa votes and takes time to consider other people's !votes. This is the kind of person we need on the "promoting side" of Rfa. Best of luck, Balloonman. --Cameron* 10:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely. Protonk (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, while I'm not always an immense fan of Balloonman's attitude to some aspects of RfA candidates, I have to say I know of very few people who can beat him in terms of knowledge and dedication to the process itself. I would have absolutely no problem having him determine RfA consensus, and I trust him to do so responsibly. ~ mazca  t 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The RfA issue noted was a bad mistake, we all agree on that. But the point is, so does the candidate. He never tried to explain it away or to blame someone else but him. Many might say that is nothing special but everyone knows that this is not normal. Normally people make up excuses why they acted in a certain way. The question of this RfB is this: Do I trust Balloonman as a crat? Yes I do. If the opposers can only cite Giggy's RfA as an opposing reason, then they have to ask themselves whether that really tarnishes the candidates great contributions in a way that he can not (ever?) become a crat. I don't think they should.  So Why  14:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, although I hold nothing against the opposition, because I think you have to make a judgment call in this RfB. Why did Balloonman choose the RFA and CSD standards that he chose, and will he be flexible if standards change?  Rather than argue the case, since it looks like this RfB will fail, I'd like to point out that there's an easy way to figure out the answer in time for Balloonman's next RfB.  There's a clear, recent trend at RFA in favor of changing standards, for instance, the current RFDA proposal (on WT:RFA).  To the opposition: give it a few months, and watch how Balloonman adapts and reacts to the changes.  Personally, I give Balloonman the benefit of the doubt; I don't see any great crimes here, but as political wags often say, "The only unforgivable sin in politics is to tell the truth", and Balloonman has often told the truth. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support Outstanding candidate experienced and further studies each and every candidate and issue in great depth before commenting fully trustworthy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Obviously he did wrong on that RfA, the rest of his work has been outstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support -- Iamawesome800  Talk to Me   16:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Yes, he screwed up in the past, but it was six eight months ago. I think he will be a valuable 'crat if this passes.  Little Mountain  5   16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I often disagree with Balloonman's RfA opinions; however, I highly respect his evaluation and thought processes. Balloonman provides excellent rationale and thoughts behind all of his admin actions: indeed, he reconsiders his stances when asked. He does not entrench himself behind a particular opinion; rather, he follows, continues, and contributes to discussion. Although I do not agree with all of Balloonman's opinions, I do strongly support the thoughtful and kind approach to his Wikipedia activities. Thus, I support his request for cratship and hope to see him become a member of the bureacrat cadre. All the best. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Balloonman has a good eye for understanding what is needed for adminship, knows how to read legitimate supports and opposes, and would know how to weigh the percentages. This is an important trait and makes him a strong candidate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support What Ottava said. Balloonman isn't going to screw up and I trust him to understand when to default to the status quo and when it's worth taking the risk when it comes to borderline cases. DHMO5 was eight months ago for heaven's sake. – iride scent  18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Icewedge (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per Majorly. —  Aitias  // discussion 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your support Aitias, I have never liked the Support per an opposer rationale. It is unnecessarily antagonistic and flat out rude.  If you read Majorly's oppose, and it convinced you to support for some reason, explain how/why you can look the same evidence but reached a different conclusion.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I cannot see any problems here and his work has been great. Most definately a positive if this succeeds. Andy (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Here is my rationale. I have no qualms at all about how Balloonman has conducted himself as an administrator, even if I haven't always agreed with everything he's said or done. But there probably isn't anyone that I've always agreed with, and neither is there ever likely to be, with luck. The bureaucrat's job is hardly rocket science, far easier than the administrator's job, and mainly involves judging that elusive wikipedia notion of "consensus", at least in the context of RfA, where Balloonman has said that he wants to work. Do I think Balloonman is competent to do that job? Yes, I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for the intelligence and wisdom shown on Wiki as an Admin. I may not always agree with his decisions or opinions, but I respect his judgements.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per general sentiment. Minfo (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support There's good evidence on both sides. However, I am defaulting to support based on your knowledge of RFA.  From a hotel in Manhattan,  Sam  Blab 01:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support he made a mistake which hurt his reputation more than it hurt Wikipedia. No one is perfect, and we need 'crats. Balloonman is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and he actually wants the job. I strongly believe that cratship is a much smaller deal than adminship. Balloonman is a capable admin, so I see no reason to oppose. faithless   (speak)  01:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support The answers to my questions dispel any concern as to adherence to policy, you clearly understand what its for and can act both in the letter and spirit of anything adopted as policy on wikipedia. You therefore understand what is at stake for rfa and other venues, and can weigh other people's words with the care I expect a crat to have. Your low admin count does not concern me in the least; a low admin count could be a result of any number of things (in my case, it because most of my time goes toward contributing to articles, not vandalism patrol or xfd). In the end I can find no really good reason to oppose, and one really good reason to support: your open and honest admittance of a mistake and its consequences. If you are willing to fess up instead of duck and run than I believe that you can be trusted with the tools of a crat. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I have found Balloonman's expositions on policy to be insightful and educational. His past behavior indicates that he will be able to judge consensus dispassionately. Also I found the opposing arguments weak, and, in one case, inappropriate. Wronkiew (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Very Strong Support: One of the most sensible admins I have seen around. Every explanation is backed up by through research and rationale. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 09:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Very Strong Support I wos one of the two people that asked if he would be a crat mentioned in his statement. My position hasn't changed. Leujohn  ( talk ) 10:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- Ar ct ic F <font color="#A7F1C8">ox   13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I have seen Balloonman around the here on Wikipedia many times, and I have always seen him as a wonderful admin. I have no doubt that if given the chance, Balloonman would also be a good crat'. Good luck! America69 (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Firstly, the user seems truly sorry about the DHMO incident, from the impression. I've garnered. As I understand it, the second criticism is about WP:IAR. The answer to question 9 should satisfy anybody worrying about that; anyway, I'm more of a Hobbesian and am a big supporter of following the rules. The third criticism seems to stem from Balloonman's actions at the RfA process. I have seen no problems there. Just because one is successful at nominating users does not mean one is 'gaming the system'. If I misunderstand any of these criticisms, or any policies I've referenced, please correct me. Otherwise, I see no reason not to support Balloonman. Bsimmons<font color="#990000">666  (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Can we please never talk about the DHMO RFA ever again? Keepscases (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I have a lot of respect for Balloonman and think he would be a good crat. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per Davewild. Balloonman has almost always impressed me. And now we need more 'crats.--chaser - t 05:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Seems very keen. Six hours reviewing candidates! SantinpanTease (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also this -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 11:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. I do not mean to be harsh, as I really do admire your enthusiasm for RfA improvement, and I think you are a kind and helpful administrator and an asset here.  I think your thoughts on CSD improvement are brilliant, and your mea culpa over the DHMO RfA took courage.  However, with respect to bureaucrat candidacy: (1) I fundamentally disagree with your idea of process in "aspiring administrators": I cringe when I see essays titled How to pass an RfA, and projects on "admin coaching". (2) I question your maturity and judgment, and specifically cite your vociferousness in opposing Nichalp's striking of votes at a recent RfA, which I thought was misplaced (other discussions as well).  I think this would adversely affect your objectivity as a bureaucrat.  My apologies -- Samir 07:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For those who don't know what Samir is referencing, the discussion can be found here. Basically Nichalp struck some !votes from an RfA and I do not believe that it is the 'crats role to strike !votes during an RfA.  The crats should evaluate the validity of !votes when closing, and can even ask for clarification about an !vote during an RfA, but I do not believe they should strike an !vote without discussion.  IMO, it is the community's role to address weak rationale while the RfA is open.  It should also be noted that this incident lead to an admin giving up his bit.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 07:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I apologize if this seems as if I'm not moving on, but Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 precludes my support for a fair length of time, of which not enough has elapsed for me to !vote anywhere else but here. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem Daniel, I expect to get opposes over that, and I don't hold any animosity towards it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 07:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) From experiences in the past, I've found Balloonman too willing to disregard common sense in favor of policy. See for example the deletion log, and deleted content of Sandwichmas, which Balloonman deleted, then for reasons that still boggle my mind, undeleted it and tagged it for prod, despite it being obviously made-up crap. Also, his description of criteria for CSD'er of the week - any award that rewards people for not ignoring a rule where they have a chance to improve the encyclopedia by doing so is not one that I want. Awarding people for following policy correctly is one thing, admonishing people for using IAR, regardless of how correct the IAR usage was, is not something I like to see. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 08:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose the over reliance of the use of IAR, especially at CSD. CSD has a bad reputation, an  that bad reputation comes from people who think they have the right/responsibility to evaluate articles and determine if they should be IAR'd.  If you are citing IAR all the time while working CSD, then either the categories for CSD need to be revised or (more likely) your utilization of IAR does.  The award recognizes adhere to the policies and guidelines because we have too many admins who bite newbies by deleting potentially valid articles.  A quick review at the survey that is linked at my sig or the other surveys will quickly show that CSD'ers are too eager to speedy delete articles that shouldn't be.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you seem to make little to no distinction between misuse of IAR and proper use of IAR. Proper use of IAR benefits the encyclopedia and is a Good Thing™. Also, and I just really noticed this after some other opposers here pointed this out, your deletion log to date consists of only 60 entries in your 17 months of being an admin, only 21 of which are marked as CSD deletions, yet you seem to think yourself as some sort of CSD expert, despite having spent almost no time "in the field" - your expertise in CSD seems to consist almost entirely of second-hand descriptions, reading polices and essays, and observations from afar. Knowledge of policies is good, knowledge of the practical application of policies is critical, especially for someone trying to change the policies. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose - I've come out fo wikibreak to place this opposition. Sorry, but absolutely no way. Your actions in past preclude my support of your bureaucratship, probably forever (the DHMO RfA is the most salient reference). Over the last year or so, I have observed your unhealthy fascination with RfA, and I have often not been impressed by what I've seen. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, but I really do not like the way you act and think in general about RFAs. I also find it bizarre that you find it distressing that people cite you when opposing - if you oppose, you don't think the candidate is good enough, and if you quote a load of evidence, as you usually do, it's probably good if people cite you. Also really didn't like how you handled the Nichalp incident; I found your position that striking votes pending clarification was absolutely wrong while quietly ignoring them at the end was fine, especially as the vote was really bad. Also don't see a special need for extra people at CHU etc. I feel pretty bad about opposing because I don't think you're a bad person or anything. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad Tombomp, I really am at ease with however this RfB turns out. But I did want to respond to why I find it distressing that people cite me when they oppose.  It boils down to the fact that I sometimes wonder how much effort people put into vetting candidates themselves.  I don't !vote on RfA's if I haven't done some research into the candidate first---which is why you don't see me !voting when the verdict is pretty clear one way or another---and why I probably oppose a larger percentage of people than most.  But when I see a score of people citing me, it makes me wonder if they did any research on their own?  Plus, I am not perfect.  Yes, when I oppose, I generally have solid reasons for my opposes, but the community to needs to do it's own research.  Relying upon one voice can be detrimental.  This is part of the reason why I am interested in becoming a Crat, I do enjoy the RfA arena, I just don't like the (over) reliance some people place in my !votes.  I actually think measuring consensus would mean less influence over the process, not more.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 09:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd take it as a positive that people !vote re Balloonman. Source credibility is an important strategy in decision making, especially when the evidence is ambiguous. (cf. ).--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Daniel. Sorry, but that episode stands out a bit too prominently in my mind at the moment. Per above, this is a regretful oppose, as I genuinely like a lot of the things you contribute to the project. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 10:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. There has been enough time since the DHMO RfA issue for me to overlook it. However I have serious concerns about Balloonman's ongoing "questioning" of RfA !voters. I understand that RfA is a "discussion" and Balloonman is entitled to "discuss". However, in my opinion, his comments are unwarranted on the RfA page. I worry that as a bureaucrat, he would dismiss many RfA !votes that actually have sufficient justification.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ER, this oppose is IMO completely out of left field and unfounded. I generally don't question RfA !voters, and when I do, it is generally a single short statement to indicate that I disagree with the position presented.  I think you would be hard pressed to show a trend wherein I get into it with !voters.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A cynical reader might think that you responded just to spite my very point. However I shall assume good faith. Here are some relevant edits from the last three weeks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. My point is that, in my opinion, you are "discussing" with !voters, often simply because you disagree with them or their reasoning. In my opinion, this is not appropriate at RfA. It is especially not appropriate for a potential bureaucrat. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the candidate can defend himself against spurious attacks. So of all the RfA's I've participated in you found nine comments in the oppose section.  Did you review them?
 * I ask DGG why I voted the way he did, because I'm asking not to badger you, but rather because this is a reason that if I am mistaken, I would reconsider my support. I wasn't arguing with him, but rather trying to determine if my support was in error.
 * The !voter was challenged by another user for that users criteria, and I defended the !voter.
 * The oppose says "per number 11." So I ask what is number 11?  How can you weigh an oppose when it doesn't clearly state what it is referencing?
 * two are related to the allegation that DYK is most pointless, time-wasting aspects of Wikipedia.
 * 3 are related to the importance of somebody having CSD experience when they explicitly stated the desire to work with CSD's.
 * 1 is related to an oppose wherein the !voter was opposing because he was unfamiliar with the candidate.
 * So in other words in the past few weeks, in the discussion of the RfA, I participated in six discussions? Two of those times was to get clarification from the opposer and once to defend the opposer.  And only in one case did I carry on a discussion which was more than one response to a single !voter?  The role of the community is to highlight !votes that are not valid.  If RfA isn't a vote and a discussion, then we need to have discussions.  If it is merely a vote, then let's kill all discussion and go with a straight up or down vote.  Discussions are a valuable part of the project, again I will reassert what I said, if I participate in the discussions, it is generally s single statement to indicate that I disagree with the !voter. (of course, you've already pointed out how my responding to you counters that argument, but your position is unfounded.23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a disagreement about the nature of discussion at RfA. This is your opinion against mine. This does not invalidate my !vote. Indeed it is because you fail to understand this that I wouldn't trust you to close RfAs. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can accept that.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per nom. Balloonman is a very fine editor and a solid, conscientious admin, but I do not believe he has sufficient judgment for bureaucratship. Despite the disaster that was the DHMO RfA, he apparently continues to believe that DHMO/Giggy would make a good admin. Let us not forget that it was not ultimately Balloonman who scuppered that RfA, but Giggy himself, when he revealed another user's real life identity by email in what appeared to be an act of revenge. In the light of the recent Ecoleetage debacle, I don't need to comment on how serious a matter that is. When his action came to light, Giggy aborted and blanked the RfA, said he was quitting, and was not held to account.  It left a sour taste, and I say this as someone who works alongside Giggy at GA and greatly values the contributions he makes to the project, at GA and elsewhere.
 * But I digress. As Samir notes, Balloonman has done a great deal to advance the idea of RfA as an exam which one trains for, further perpetuating the view that to pass RfA it is more important to tick boxes than to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness. His "obvious oppose" of CRGreathouse illustrates this: I do not disagree with the oppose, but question the decision to make such a strong case against. If, as he states, he does not like others opposing "per Balloonman", then this is a funny way of going about it. Finally I can't understand how the thought "I’ve literally spent up to six hours reviewing candidates before !voting. This is too much of my time wasted on one aspect of the project." leads to the idea of becoming a bureaucrat. Balloonman recently asked how much time I had spent at RfA. My answer is "too much recently". The best way to spend less time at RfA is well, to spend less time there, not to become one of those who oversee it.
 * Keep up the good editing and adminship work. Sorry I can't support and apologies for the "per nom" joke (I have always wanted to do that :). I would add that I do not consider myself to be a potential candidate for bureaucrat either, ever. Geometry guy 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no bad feelings GG, the joke made me chuckle and again, however this goes I entered the RfB with the attitude that what happened it wasn't going to bother me.  Just a few points, please take a look at my coaching philsophy.  My approach to coaching is not the one to fill in the blanks---but rather to get experience in 2-3 areas plus content building.  Second, you ask why I think overseeing the area would lead to less involvement at RfA?  I honestly think that I would spend less time monitoring RfA's as a 'crat because I would be less inclined to !vote myself and my role is would simply be  to measure consensus... and to answer JayHenry's concern below, I think I would be less influencial as a 'crat than I have been as a participant---again, the role of a crat is simply to measure consensus, not set it.  As a participant, you are invovled in setting it, and for better or worse, I have been a voice setting consensus---which is part of what I don't like.  Becoming a crat would afford me a way to participate in an area I am familiar with without having to spend the time there.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I greatly respect your decision to come to RfB with a "we need more 'crats" spirit to test the water, knowing that it might fail. I think a few others should try it. I'd like to clarify a nuance in my oppose: the "further perpetuating" was intended not to refer to you, but to distinguish between your influence and an unfortunate knock-on effect. I know your coaching philosophy from looking into it 8 months ago and value the side benefit to Wikipedia of providing well trained editors. Concerning measuring consensus, I don't consider that to be a simple matter: it may be necessary to look into some background to understand where each side is coming from and assess the strength of their arguments. Geometry guy 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Mr.Z-man - excessive focus on rules, and insufficient emphasis on the encyclopedia. Suggesting that it's somehow wrong to ignore all the rules is a mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I generally feel that 'crats should all be top flight content contributors rather then being focused in wikipedia space and I can see you have contributed featured content but I just don't agree to your approach to RFA. Spartaz Humbug! 14:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * not ready yet You are an outstanding admin, but I think you would benefit from more experience and tempering before becoming a 'crat. Dloh  cierekim  15:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck to avoid pileon. Dloh  cierekim  23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Balloonman is a very nice person, and is extremely dedicated to the RFA process, chipping in with his opinion on nearly every RFA and discussion there is. However, I find his approach to it entirely at odds with what should be happening. In an ideal world, every regular editor would be an admin. And I'll be honest here: I think I'd trust nearly every regular editor to be one. This is because, although the phrase is a cliché, adminship is not a big deal. Jimbo may have said that in 2003, but it should apply to today too, and somewhere along the line, people decided that no, it shouldn't be. This is very bad for Wikipedia. Balloonman appears to treats RFAs as though the person being assessed is being assessed for maybe a position like ArbCom. Apparently he spends up to several hours researching them. He will also oppose RFAs a lot - often over extremely minor points (example, the person hasn't been active six months - a nonsensical oppose, since many of our finest admins passed with two months experience or less). While I appreciate his thoughtfulness and dedication to RFAs, I feel he thinks adminship is a very big deal, and I can't understand why. Yes, we had Archtransit, but no one saw that coming. Same with Poetguy. I'm sure there's a special name for the type of fallacy used here - "Archtransit passed, so we have to be stricter on RFAs!" It simply makes no sense to me, and I believe Balloonman is one user who helps promote that. He is well respected on RFAs, and Wikipedia in general, so people will follow his (bad) example. There is also this RFA, where the candidate was clearly not ready (he'd recently created an article that was a complete copy and paste copyvio) - Balloonman claims to thoroughly vet his candidates, but missed a big one there. And also a very minor point, Balloonman barely uses admin rights as it is. I'm wondering if he would be so active in bureaucrat tasks.  Majorly  talk  15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't believe in admin coaching as users either have the vast majority of the abilities required to be an admin or they don't. Simple as that. Sure, they can be taught to pass an RFA, but not how to be a responsible admin. Also, as Majorly mentions above, nomming an editor for admin when it could be argued they should have been blocked for gross and flagrant copyright violations shortly before, is unforgivable. The projects needs admins with the maturity and basic abilities to act as admins, not the sort of trophy players Balloonman's coaching tends to encourage GTD 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't think Balloonman is right for this role. Not all people are suited for all roles, even the ones they most strongly want. His description of events above, which is confused and self-contradicting, is demonstration enough. It simply doesn't make sense - he wanted him to become an admin, but thought the RfA should fail. How should we interpret that? I don't see any light in which that becomes reasonable. His description of why he wants to be a bureaucrat also doesn't make that much sense to me. If I understand correctly, its because he wants to stop influencing the outcomes of requests, and also to stop having to do extensive research, while remaining involved in the process? I believe if he hadn't recapped the Giggy RfA and his rationale for his actions, this request would have a much better chance, because Balloonman is a good guy and his opposes do convince people and cause others (including me) to pay closer attention to a candidate. But done is done. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose – per Mr.Z-man, the Giggy RfA drama and not enough interest shown in wanting to work with RfBAG and/or CHU. Caulde  16:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Not impressed by his very limited admin work, a lot of theory but no practice, often awkward rationales, even lack of rationales for deletions, resulting in "content was". I'm worried that bureaucratship is sought to further a position of RFA pundit, but not to make significant bureaucrat work, especially outside RFA. As above per this and this and for promoting a standardization of the process and an undue pre-selection of candidates deemed worthy of it, fostered by admin coaching, the idea that RFA is an exam, etc. This hasty move reflects it. Balloonman is too concerned with the process to judge it fairly and independently of his personal view. <font color="#000080">Cenarium <font color="#000090"> (Talk) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose.  I think Balloonman would like to be the godfather of adminship and I think that's not a role we need.  He talks at great length about himself.  About how much time he spends vetting candidates, how rarely he beats the nom, how significant it is when he does this or that, about how he frequently opposes other admin coaches' candidates (because it's only meaningful when he does the vetting and coaching, I guess), about how many people seek him out for advice.  I don't know if it's the intent of all his arm waving, but the effect is that too many candidates waste their time trying to kiss Balloonman's pinky ring.  I think I saw him say once that he would like to be the SandyGeorgia of RFA.  That's just not a role we need at RFA.  Bureaucrats are not "admins on steroids". --JayHenry (t) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Crats are like admins on steroids... an admin is no different from a normal user except they have a few extra buttons. A crat, IMO, is no different rom an admin except they have a few extra buttons.  That's the extent of the difference.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither adminship nor bureaucratship are just "a few extra buttons". I don't know if you actually believe they are, or are just spouting meaningless rhetoric that you yourself don't really believe; either way it's a problem. --JayHenry (t) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they're supposed to be a few extra buttons. That they aren't in practise is another issue.  Majorly  talk  17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an essay on my stance regarding adminship which is equally true for crat. I've said this before, to me you don't have to be an admin to act like an admin, nor do you have to be a crat to act like a crat. The extent of the differences between a user-admin-crat, is nothing more than a few tools available. In that regard, the tools available, it is an apt description---especially when trying to describe the subject to somebody who isn't familiar with the concepts. (Also, Jay regarding your comment about and my role at RfA, yes I did at one point say that I wanted to be the SandyGeorgia of RfA's---eg respected and trusted like her. As I said on my talk page, my views on the project have changed, but my role hasn't.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even really agree with the premise that they're supposed to be just a few extra buttons, so we're on doubly different wavelengths. --JayHenry (t) 20:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I hate to do this, but I feel like I must. I trust Balloonman. I would trust him to be a crat. But in my ideal world, I would not not like Balloonman to be one. Balloonman has shown some great ideas in at RfA. His work with administrator coaching has been a huge deal of help to many. His reviews at RfA have been a helpful advice for those who were sitting on the fence for an RfA. I'd prefer him to stay that way. Balloonman would be better as the "godfather of adminship," as JayHenry puts it, rather than a bureaucrat who might have to recuse himself for what looks like it will be tough calls, because he should be voting. And that's where we need Balloonman to close an RfA. But if we get that, than we lose on his vote, and that is also not so cool. I saw that you said you might end up leaving RfA if this request doesn't pan out. I wish you all the best :)
 * Right now, all we need is someone who hangs around at UAA or CHU or maybe even BRFA to come up and become an bureaucrat. I just don't think that Balloonman fits this role. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 17:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on what NW indicated above. I was asked on my talk page if I planned on continuing doing what I've been doing, I said: Probably not, but not as a result of what happens at the RfB... as I mentioned in my statement, I don't like the role I've been playing at RfA. I don't think it is healthy that some people seem to think that I am the authority/go to person. And have been thinking about backing down in that area for a while. I saw becoming a crat as a means to continue working in an area that I enjoy, but where the job/role I've been serving isn't one I enjoy anymore. My views on the project have changed, but role hasn't. In other words, my departure from RfA won't be a reaction to the RfB, but rather the RfB was a possible means to not leave RfA
 * 1) Oppose per Majorly. I really don't agree with his approach to RFA. Garion96 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry bud, but Majorly sums my view up best. <font color=#006600>Garden . 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely not, per an extremely unhealthy fascination with RFA. More than that, though, the absolute worst debacle of an RFA in this website's history. That was a shameful time for this entire community, and per Daniel and Anonymous Dissident, this is without doubt a Strong Oppose, not while I am active with this project vote. Glass  Cobra  18:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since a Crat deals with RfAs, why would a commitment to RfAs be a bad thing, especially when a Crat is supposed to show strong interest in the area before becoming a Crat? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's opposing because of my faux pas with Giggy back in May. While Cobra and I seem to have an amicable relationship now, I was kind of expecting his oppose based on some comments back then.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. An "ok" admin, but didn't demonstrate the abilities to push himself to the next level. User:PhilKnight says it right, he focused too much energy on rules, but somehow always forgot the ignore-all-rules rule. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Nice dude, but not someone I would trust as a crat. I would have opposed his RfA too if I had been there, but I wasn't. If elected, he either 1. wouldn't do anything with his tools, or 2. would sit there stalking RfA's all day, while getting seriously involved in them, thereby decreasing the chance that he could accurately and unbiasedly close them. If case 2 happened, then he either 2.a. would close them anyway because he feels pressured to do something with his tools (pressure stemmed from the comments in his RfB that he did nothing with his admin tools) or 2.b. not close them because he knows that getting involved in a discussion makes you unable to make a wise decision about the discussion, which would mean that he's not using his tools (which happens to be argument 1). For those of you that say that just because he can't close RfA's doesn't mean he doesn't do anything with his tools: You're wrong. He has a bunch of jobs, but only the one here at RfA pays him anything. He volunteers often sometimes  rarely as-close-to-never-as-you-can-get-without-getting-wet as a clerk at CHU and USURP, so he might spend some time there, but other than that he's devoid of any possible crat tasks. flaminglawyerc 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose poor grasp of WP:NOT suggests insufficient overall policy knowledge. --Rividian (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The candidate seems to think that admin coaching actually achieves something useful. Given that, it is likely that when assessing and weighing support for candidates at RfA, this candidate will take into account and positively weigh participation in admin coaching activities. However, admin coaching is fundamentally wrong-headed. I feel it creates over-confident admins, with a strong knowledge of the wording of policies and guidelines but little feel for their spirit or intent. It encourages "gaming" and discourages editors applying their common sense, for risk that they will mis-apply a policy. When assessing administrator candidates, knowledge of policy should come a distant third; I trust administrators to be able to read. It falls well behind the trustworthiness of the administrator candidtate and also well behind the maturity and civility of the candidate. I fear Balloonman places far too much emphasis on policy knowledge and "experience" and too little on maturity, civility and trustworthiness; things that can't be drilled in admin coaching. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you saying that the user is predisposed to be biased against users who haven't put in the effort to be prepared for RfA? And "common sense" now trumps an understanding of rules and policies that, when enforced by those lacking in knowledge, can damage the abilities of others around here? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your second question first, I don't recall saying "'common sense' now trumps an understanding of rules and policies". Rather, policies and guidelines need to be interpreted in the context of what for lack of a better word can be called "common sense" (others may call it WP:IAR, but I don't feel that is the right term) and some idea about the rules are trying to achieve, a free encyclopedia, not some sort of bureaucratic algorithm. Trustworthy and civil editors are unlikely to damage the project as much as well-drilled admins who are arrogant or abuse the community's trust. Back to your first point, it isn't so much as the candidate will be biased or discriminate against non-coached candidates, it is more that when assessing candidates within the area where he gets to use his discretion, he will weigh participation in admin coaching as a positive, where I see it as as best neutral, at worst, a negative. Your comment "users who haven't put in the effort to be prepared for RfA" is exactly what I consider the problem with admin coaching to be. It is designed to rote-train candidates for administrator status and treats adminship as a goal in its own right, rather than a minor, mainly janitorial duty. I am happy to discuss my thoughts on administrator coaching and the current RfA process elsewhere if you wish. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what is common sense? If it is something innate, then it would be impossible to really determine it, and some people would never belong. If it is something that you can gain, then it would seem that a training program would be the only suitable way. Neither possibility really seems to support you. "Trustworthy and civil editors are unlikely to damage the project as much as well-drilled admins" I would point out that most who are trained are the trustworthy and civil editors, whereas the arrogant ones are the ones who never wished to be trained nor seek advice from a mentor because they thought they knew everything already. I believe that most will agree that education and working with another on something for a few months gives a higher chance of someone having an understanding and doing the right thing than someone without such, hence why societies put an emphasis on training and education. "treats adminship as a goal in its own right" Really? Because anyone applying or accepting a nomination seeks adminship as a goal regardless, just like anyone applying to a trade school seeks to be employed in that trade. Adminship is a job. It requires experience and understanding. Why should we water down it with those who lack either? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let me say that I have no doubt that those involved in admin coaching feel that what they are doing is for the benefit of the project. Their hearts are in the right place, I simply disagree with the results. Perhaps I haven't been clear about what I mean by common sense. By that I mean an ability to interpret the rules to get a result that leads to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Again I guess it is a little like IAR, except IAR seems most commonly cited as a reason to ignore consensus and act wilfuly. Is it innate: no, but some find it easier to acquire than others. Can it be taught: possibly, but not through rote-coaching or doing exercises. The best way to acquire a feel for what policy and procedure is trying to do is participate in what the community is trying to do, write a free encyclopedia. Participation in admin coaching or hanging out at AN/I or AfD do nothing to help immerse candidates in the core goal of the project. Indeed, it treats the project like a game, where knowing the rules is more important than providing content. This idea that adminship is a job or a trade in own right seems to me to be fundamentally wrong-headed; adminship is neither. It is a set of minor volunteer tasks, requiring little in the way of knowledge (other than knowing where to look) but a lot in the way in trustworthiness and civility. There is no glory in it and it is not some mark of success. All it requires is that the community trusts this editor not to wilfully abuse the tools. If that trust is given, I do not see why we should not trust that editor to be able to read and apply policy and/or seek help where it is needed. Adminship is not particle physics!  Training and education can be important, but only if the training is relevant and appropriate, I have my doubts about both with regards to admin coaching. I see little is gained by running editors through excercises on speedy deletion, page protection etc. I often wonder if one of the best reasons to participate in admin coaching is the knowledge that once completed, a trusted editor will strongly support your admin candidacy! Using myself as an example (somewhat warily, as I have no doubt that anyone who looks hard enough will find several errors in my use of the tools), I never seriously thought of becoming an admin until Giggy approached me, which was a pleasant surprise. It was certainly never a goal I set myself. My "goal" is and remains the writing of a free encyclopedia. Performing admin tasks is my little way of performing the drudgery so as to give something back to the project whcih has given me so much enjoyment. I considered (and still consider) the idea of "training" for the role to be ludricrous, either I was trusted or I wasn't. Fortunately, I was. If some sort of training was made compulsory I would have said "sod it". While I consulted them from time to time, I had never read even our core policies from start to finish until after I was given the tools. Even now, I need to look up the specific CSD criteria if I need the number, I have little idea on the appropriate guidelines on non-free images and I find the concept of a set number of "warnings" for vandalising editors rather strange. Even so, I have managed to get by so far. If I need to know something I know where to look or who to ask. I will leave it to you to decide what sort of admin I have made. I apologise for the length, I am happy to take the discussion elsewhere if you wish to continue. Here is probably not the appropraie place to continue abstract discussion of the nature of adminship. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IAR is a justification to do the right thing, but it does not protect you from results. People have been blocked, banned, desysopped, and other such measures for doing what they thought was "IAR". The term has been abused to justify CoI actions, 3RR violations, and many, many problems. I honestly feel that an admin should follow consensus if they want to keep their tools. Otherwise, they cannot be trusted. There are too many problematic admin now who believe in unilateral action, have a sketchy understanding of the policies, and like to proclaim egocentric based interpretations. They don't do what is -best- for the encyclopedia, which IAR is there only to do. They use it for their own benefit. Why? Because they lacked a strong understanding, a guiding hand, and an environment in which they had to work with others instead of being independent. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply is here. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight, because I support Admin Coaching, that means that I will be biased for people who have undergone admin coaching? If that is the case, then the correlary should also be true?  That I would be more apt to support somebody who has undergone admin coaching?  Correct?  Well, that just isn't supported by the facts.  If you look at my !voting record at RfA's I'm am actually tougher on somebody who has gone through coaching because they should be more prepared than somebody who hasn't.  I don't want to dig through all of the RfA's to find examples, but here is an admin coaching coming to me because I had been critical of his approach to admin coaching.  In fact, a fair number of coached candidates I've opposed explicity because their coaching wasn't how to be a better wikipedian/admin, but rather how to fill the blanks the coach thought were necessary to passing an RfA.  Thus, I challenge the very premise of your rationale.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 19:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_adminship/AddshoreAnother where I started with I started with his user coaching page, where I felt like he was getting info on what he needed to do to pass an RfA, not on how to be a better Wikipedian/Admin. [|Oppose While I am a big fan of admin coaching, I don't see it as a pass to RfA's.] Here's another that I opposed.  There are more, but those are just the one's I can think of off the top of my head.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 19:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained above to Ottava Rima, given your views and participation in admin coaching, I feel that when assessing RfAs within the area of your discretion, you will view participation in admin coaching as a net positive. I see admin coaching as at best, neutral or at worst, a net negative. How someone could read that and come up with the idea that I think you would support and promote all admin coached candidates I am not quite sure. I am sure that your involvement in admin coaching is meant well and designed to improve the encyclopedia, but I see it as part of the problem, not a solution. Your opinion may differ. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you were to actually look at my position related to coaching, you would see that I A) do not advocate coaching for everybody, I've rejected a number of people, and have encouraged people to go straight to RfA, because I don't believe in using coaching to game the system. If a person is ready or looking to polish their resume, then I don't advocate coaching for them.  2) I don't view coaching as a net positive, in fact, I have consistently said that people who go through coaching should have higher standards applied to them.  If you want to be critical of my view of people who go through coaching, the real would be will Balloonman be tougher on coachees---and the answer is yes.  I do view coaching a possible positive, but I have higher expectations for people who have gone through coaching.  A review of any of my discussion on the subject will demonstrate that, as does my voting record.  Speculation that I would use coaching to tilt the balance one way or another is not based on facts.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose. No way, no how. Balloonman is one of the most prominent enablers of the ridiculous farce RfA has become. Is part of the problem and promotion to 'crat status would be in gravest error. RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay! You're not protesting! It's a miracle! flaminglawyerc 16:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RfB is not RfA, but I'm considering dropping the protest, the community's point has been made in regards to the standards at RfA, in large part through the votes in this particular RfB. My faith in the community is somewhat restored. RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I was having trouble articulating the reasons for my strong gut opposition to this candidate. The comments by Mattinbgn express them completely and I strongly concur. I believe Balloonman will close RfAs with a bias to criteria that I strongly disagree with. --NrDg 14:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which are? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are already having the discussion about this with Mattinbgn on the talk page here. Lets us just say he expresses my position almost exactly. My oppose is sufficiently justified for the purposes of an RfB and I won't get into an argument about it here. I have commented on the talk page. --NrDg 18:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Echoing many of the comments above, I really have nothing against you as an editor, and feel the project benefits from your presence. I'm opposing your RfB mainly on the grounds that you're not really one of the better admins. I expect a 'crat candidate to be someone who has a highly active admin log, rather than just a responsible editor who sometimes uses the mop. Additionally, while your commitment to process is not a bad thing (after all, it promotes "better safe than sorry"), I do need to see evidence that you are willing to ignore all rules precisely because it is the 'crats who I think should ignore all rules most often. To promote playing it safe is a good thing, but 'crats don't really have that luxury. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) '''Who knows what he might do if could end Rfa's at will. Spudinator (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Er… you do know what a 'crat does, right? We're electing someone to update bot flags and close RFAs finishing in the 70-75% range, not choosing a replacement for Godzilla. – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent  20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we could AGF and assume that he's not going to break RfA . –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose.  Strongly recommend Balloonman reduce his involvement in RfAs.  — Athaenara  ✉  23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a justification for opposing? Your comment doesn't seem to regard the RfB. It could have been easily accomplished via leaving a note on his talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's already been happening... and will probably continue.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 08:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I vividly remember Avraham's first RfB where people chastised him for not participating in RfA enough. 78.34.151.9 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Involvement in RFAs is fairly essential in a bureaucrat role. There is, however, such a thing as too much involvement.  Majorly  talk  15:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Tentative oppose - I have a lot of respect for Balloonman - he is undoubtedly a good administrator and a genuinely kind and friendly person in his own right, but both his preference for policy over common sense and Giggy's RfA make me hesitant to !vote any other way. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Majorly, I don't agree with his "RfA obsession". —macyes: bot 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Regardless of how Balloonman votes at RfA (or how cool of a guy he is) I've never seen him as someone with sound judgement. Just doesn't seem fit for the role.-- Koji †  02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. This just doesn't feel right to me, B-man.  I didn't take the time to read any of this (the nom/support/or oppose sections), because I feel I know you "well enough" with on-wiki co-experiences to know that you are a good editor, a good admin (when you actually admin, I'm pretty sure you don't use the tools all that much), and that you'll take this all in stride if it doesn't go well.  But for some reason, this just doesn't sit right with me at the moment (and it has nothing to do with Gig).  Apologies.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  | <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no problem... I am not overly worried about it... I am thankful for the feedback that I'm getting from people and don't hold any grudges against anybody for what they've said. (Although there are 2 or 3 that I completely disagree with... the rest I will take to heart, and we'll see what happens.  Like I said, my editting patterns were going to change anyways.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 05:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As (shockingly) pointed out by Cenarium - less than 200 admin actions in nearly 3 years ? JPG-GR (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: I've only been an admin for less than 1 1/2 years. It won't change your point/position, but I did want make that clarification.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies - was late and was misinterpretting the log file. JPG-GR (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I feel that editors with relatively strict RfA criteria/feelings should not be bureaucrats. A 'crat needs to stay almost completely neutral while determining consensus. I think Balloonman would be strongly biased towards his own list of necessary qualifications. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Based on the evidence Maxim brought forward, I was preparing to Neutral this RFB. My theory being that while Balloonman did not have extensive experience in the traditional admining areas of block/delete/protect, he did have a unique knowledge of the RfX process.  His answer to question 12 though disappoints me greatly.  It was a softball of a question.  It has never occurred before, so he could have said he re-crat some and not others, that he'd talk with other crats, or that make all of them re-run RFB since RFB is so different today.  Instead he gave a rather poorly researched, vague answer that leaves me wondering if he has ever looked at any of the past RFBs.  Backspacing the URL of this page would have given him the answer on how Danny was selected and I even linked to Danny's controversial re-adminning RFA.  Ugen is still editing today, so he clearly did not leave then he gave up crat.  And Optim, someone who it seems like Balloonman would classify as non-controversial, blocked himself for a year and then came back for an edit to say to de-crat himself.  If he had extensive admin experience elsewhere, or was active in bots, I might be able to overlook him not knowing the detailed history of the process.  But since his main qualification is his examination of the process, I feel I must oppose.   MBisanz  talk 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree the answer is poorly researched, I must point out a few mistakes here. Optim did not come back after March 2004 (unless the edit he made such a request is deleted). He was removed in February 2006, and I can't find any discussion regarding him. Ugen64 should certainly go through RFB again - he resigned over a controversial RFB he closed as successful when it wasn't, and that was in 2004. Francs also resigned following a controversial RFA close, and Eloquence was never elected a bureaucrat in the first place. In short, if I was answering that question, all should have to reapply for the bit except WJBscribe, who resigned uncontroversially fairly recently, and whose RFB was only a year or so ago. Danny barely passed an RFA, so there would obviously be a question of whether he had trust or not. Optim hasn't edited for nearly five years, so no trust there either. Of course, Danny had bureaucrat rights given in 2004, long before he was employed by Wikimedia.  Majorly  talk  17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  Temporarily Decidedly Neutral. I'm over here in the neutral section because I haven't had the chance to thoroughly review Balloonman's contributions yet (despite the fact that I know him well, an RFB still deserves a deep look), and I'm going to hit the sack soon. Normally I'd just comment in the morning, but I've already done some digging and I wanted to put it down before I forgot the details and had to look them up again. Anyway, as a CHU clerk myself, I've seen Balloonman there quite a bit recently, but I didn't recall seeing him there much in the past (like he said in the nomination, "I didn’t have any experience at WP:CHU or WP:USURP, I’ve now spent some time there.") So, checking the numbers here, he has 35 edits to CHU and 8 to USURP. That's not a whole lot, but like he said, "Those are probably two of the easiest areas to work", so that's not a huge concern, but it is interesting that 40 of those 43 edits were within the last ten days. The big head-scratcher, for me, is that he has that little experience with renames, "I haven’t spent much time [at] WP:B/RFA", and "My interest in RfA have been waning lately." So either little experience or little interest in each area (although he did say he might be more interested in the bot realm in the near future). But, on the other hand, I know Balloonman well and completely trust him to gauge community consensus correctly. Plus we do need more bureaucrats, especially with the recent retirings/wiki-breaks and Balloonman is one of the best. Useight (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up, when I started to think about running, I was initially thinking "May/June." But with the sudden rash of crats taking breaks, I decided to give it a go now.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 07:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stick with neutral on this one, after all. I trust his judgement, but experience is lacking in the areas I mentioned above, along with rarely using the admin tools, makes me hesitant to support. With more experience, I look forward to supporting RFB 2. Useight (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Patience is a virtue, also I don't think there is a need for a new crat atm (we might need a extra one in the CHU area, but I would like to see more activity there first) --<font style="color:Green;">Chris  08:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) An interesting observation on Balloonman - he's practically our "political analyst" in the field of RfA. He writes very extensively on the behaviour of RfA, and provides in his guides one on how to be successful. This trait can go either way to himself or the community, and I'm not very sure how +crat would make of him, particularly after DMHO. Might support in future. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm completely undecided. The oppose votes convince me as much as the support votes and my positive interactions with Balloonman.  iMatthew  //  talk  // 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral for now. I've had positive interactions with Balloonman in the past, and I admire his dedication to the RfA process as a whole. However, the opposes are convincing, and I don't feel he's quite ready for bureaucratship. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't think Balloonman is the right person for bureaucratship due to what's unfortunately an excessive interest in RFA. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So being particularly interested in the area where you will spend most of your time is a problem? Just want some clarification there. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) My comment in the support section remains true, but Maxim made some extremely convincing arguments in the discussion section.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Sorry, not after this RFA. I think Balloonman is an extremely good admin, but not quite ready to be a crat. Jonathan321 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I strongly disagree with your view on adminship, but you're very insightful and thoughtful. Clue is evident, but I just can't bring my self to support :/ <font color=#808080; span style="font-family:Calibri, Myriad, Trebuchet MS, sans serif;font-size:100%;">VX! 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Definitely a great user, but the DMHO fiasco makes this nearly a non-starter for me. I'll mull it over though. Wizardman  21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral While I'm sure he could make a fine 'crat, I think there are other users out there who could do a better job, and I do not see a need for more 'crats onWiki. That said, I don't want to strait up oppose the nom at this time. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Temporarily? Neutral There are pros and cons and my judgment is temporarily clouded by my personal feelings. I need a few days for rational thinking to set in so a support will be a real support rather than a "he's my wikifriend" support, or an oppose will be a sober, if regrettable, oppose.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral leaning support per NuclearWarfare (? No sig right there, that was him, right?) in the oppose section. (#18) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was him, with this edit. Useight (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. It seems hard not to support a good humored, generally unflappable, and obsessively analytical editor like Balloonman for the role of a bureaucrat but it is the obsessively analytical part that worries me. IMO, on wikipedia, it is generally more productive to be circumspect than it is to throw up every detail that seems important and episodes like the DHMO fiasco, the Nichalp episode, and the excessive attention paid to Rfas in general (at a rough count, more than 10-15% of his edits are in the Rfa space and that does not include all the coaching talk) are bothersome. Oddly enough, I can see Balloonman being constructive and productive on arbcom where his detailed analyses would be perfect, but, a good bureaucrat needs to be silent more often than not (speak softly and carry a big stick sort of thing) - I'm not so sure. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 03:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you mention Arbcom... it was an area that I was thinking about looking into, because as you said, I enjoy digging into things. It's the auditor in me.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lamentably Neutral - I think Balloonman is wonderful. Think he's great.  Think his opinions at RfA are passionate, if somewhat excessively serious :).  Also think you'd be wasted as a Bureaucrat - not going to oppose on such a pretext, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above 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.