User:Happyme22/admin coaching

Initial review/comments

Hi Happy, I've just spent the past 5.5 hours reviewing your edits and history. A run for adminship is feasible, but it could be tough. This is not a review of whether or not you would make a good admin, but rather whether or not you might pass an RfA. Those are two different beasts.

The negatives: First, your talk page is one of the types that as a reviewer I hate. It is very difficult to follow conversations as you respond on the other persons talk page. This could hurt you in an RfA because some of the comments that are left on your page look more damning when you don't see the response---and most people are not going to investigate the other side of the story because it is too hard to see. They will see an allegation being made, but not your response. They will see another allegation made, which supports the first, but not your response, and conclude that the allegations have merit. Second, there are a couple of times where you've been warned about 3RR. You've never been blocked, which is good, but the repeated warnings may cause some concern. Third, and this may be the biggest concern, you had a lot of images deleted. The ones that were deleted as orphans isn't a problem, it's the ones that were deleted due to licensing issues. If there were only a couple, then it wouldn't be a problem, but it is the number of images that were deleted 6 months ago that has me concerned. I think we can make a strong argument that you've learned since then as you've uploaded quite a few images since then. Fourth, you like to edit in a very controversial subject. People always say, don't debate politics, religion, or sports... if you run for RfA you will probably get some drive-by opposes. While I didn't see anything, it is possible that these drive by opposes may have some "smoking gun" that they can pull out and kill an RfA with. If they did, it could get ugly. Sometimes the smoking gun doesn't have to be true, especially if it shows up at a time where you can't refute it and suddenly a dozen people oppose before you have a chance to respond. Sixth, and I don't think this is as big of an issue as Sandy does, you are conservative. This might cause some opposes----some people have been opposed because of taking stands in their userboxes. I have no problems with user boxes that state positions (as compared to pontificate on positions.) Finally, you don't have as extensive of a history in some of the adminly areas that people like to see.

The positives: First, you are civil, that is very important in an RfA. Second, you know policies and procedures insofar as they relate to the areas where you work. Third, you have a strong record of working with different people and reaching consensus (you can't take either of the Reagan's to FA without being a miracle worker in this area!) Fourth, you have a definite need---requests for page protection. Fifth, I think this is a major marketting point for an RfA candidate right now, we need people who are interested in politics as Admins. With this election year shaping up to be a potentially bitter one, it would be nice to have people who are interested in the subjects that are trusted with the tools. Sixth, while I would like to see more participation in some adminly areas, I believe we can make a case that you are familiar with how they work. This is particularly true in light of your recent sock-puppet WQA case. Finally, I would be willing to nominate you (see my talk page for current/past candidates) and I believe Sandy indicated a willingness to co-nom.

In short, I think you would pass, but if there are any skeletons in the closet that I didn't find it could kill you. We would have to do some damage control (eg explain the 3rr warnings and highlight the fact that some of the comments left on your page need to be evaluated in light of responses on other pages.) But I THINK it is doable. I just don't want to understate the potential that, as a person who writes in a political arena, it could get nasty (or people could see how strong of a candidate you are and you could fly right through.) Let me know what you decide (and do so here---I hate jumping back and forth on talk pages!)Balloonman (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot for the very thorough analysis. It's almost 1 AM my time, so let me sleep on it. I'll probably come up with some questions to ask you but we'll save that for tomorrow. I am particulary intrigued by the split conversation issue, which I never deemed too important but I will now put a note (similar to that which you have on your talk page) at the top of my talk page about keeping conversations together. Also, what are some examples of adminly areas that I lack and could work on becoming involved in? Anyway, give me a night and I'll reach you again later. Many thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The most important adminly area for potential candidates to work in is XfD's. A few months ago failure to have a strong footprint here was a guaranteed way to fail an RfA. That has shifted as people now realize that there are other ways to guage policy knowledge/expertise, but if there was one area that I recommend for anybody considering a run, it is XfD's. XfD's have the advantage of being a consensus based area where you get a lot of feedback on policies/guidelines. This helps to shape and form your opinion on issues, it also helps shape your knowledge on areas that you aren't familiar. RfA reviewers like it because you will have the power of delete as an admin, and it shows them that you are familiar with the issues. Other areas that are easy to get involved with and RfA reviewers like to see activity are the help desk and ANI. Those are the three places that I recommend by name. They are three areas where you can get involved easily, make a few edits a day, and build up a 'footprint' in a month or two. But IMHO the real issue is what areas interest you as a prospective candidate? If BLP is an area of interest, the BLP boards might be a good place to go. If RS is of interest, that is a good place. For you, a place you might want to start hanging out would be page protection---I can see that being an area of need. Another might be Requests for Comments-Politics. "Adminly" areas includes any place where policies/guidelines are discussed. It includes any "behind the scenes" locations on the running and operations of Wikipedia. The only 'behind the scenes' area that I don't think helps out is MOS! As for the split conversations issue, part of the challenge is that you might have a conversation on your page, which is now archived. You then have to go to the other party's page and find the appropriate archive (not knowing if you actually responded or not.) Then if a third party joined the conversation, you have to find that person's page and appropriate archive. If it wasn't for Sandy's recommendation, I wouldn't have dug as deep as I did and would have concluded that you were not ready for an RfA based upon what I saw on your talk pages.Balloonman (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Another minor little thing, you might want to reword this on your user page, I know quite a bit about Presidents of the United States, and their First Ladies (particularly Ronald and Nancy Reagan)... As written it says that you know a lot about the first ladies Ron and Nancy Reagan---I didn't know that Ron was a first lady.Balloonman (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22, I spoke rather stridently against admin coaching on my talk page, but I see how a month or so of learning some of these basics with Balloonman could smooth the way for you. I know you'd be an excellent admin, I know that you have persisted civilly and cooperated with others in the face of adversity as you brought the Reagans through, and I know most others would have given up or succumbed to incivility. Remember, it was Raul who suggested we write Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-18/Dispatches. But, the simple fact that you support the Reagans will generate some opposes, so anything you can do to alleviate some of the issues raised by Balloon (like keeping talk page conversations together, that one makes me nuts, too) will help. I will co-nom whatever you decide, but I hope you'll take a month of work with Balloonman to ease the way, learn some of the areas you might need more work in, and minimize the chances you'll be mauled at RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention admin coaching until I heard whether or not Happy wanted to go for it now or later, but I would be happy to serve as your admin coach. I will be honest with you, there is some opposition to admin coaching---some people don't like it because many coaches treat it as a cosmetic. Eg answer these questions now go comment on an FA. Answer these questions now go comment on a name change. They do it quick and dirty. I treat admin coaching a little differently. To me it is an extended editor review... I will review your edits every week or two (along the lines of what I did above.) I'll ask you to make a few XfD comments every day---not alot but enough that after a month or so, you've established a solid footprint in that area (3-5 !votes a day goes a long way.) I'll also ask you to establish a footprint in another area (of your choice) that is "adminlike." I will also, ask the questions ;-) I've already established a rep on the RfA board of only nom'ing the best (I have yet to have a nom fail.) I'm also establishing a rep of being one of the tougher/more complete admin coaches. With you, I don't think the coaching would take 2-3 months, which is my norm. I think you could run today, but I think you could be much stronger in a month of guided exercises. When I nom a person, if that person fails it is the candidates fault. When I nom a coachee, if that coachee fails, it is the coaches fault---the coach has the responsibility for fully vetting the candidate to ensure that the coachee is ready. I take my reputatioin at the RfA board seriously. The choice is yours. I can see an RfA easily passing today... or it could fail. I don't know.Balloonman (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that if I run today, there is a chance I will pass and an equal chance I will fail. But if I am assisted by you through admin coaching, I will have a much stronger candidacy. Hmm... I like the sound of that :) Recently, I've been running out of tasks to do on Wikipedia within my "zone of interest", and I think being an admin will open up my range and list of available tasks. I am very much inclined to accept your offer, Balloonman. Initially, I was not going to, as I found the RfA process, plus admin coaching beforehand, much too time-consuming (User:Epbr123 offered to nominate me back in December, but I declined). But since you think it won't take 2-3 months, maybe a month at most, I accept your offer. When, where, and how do we start? Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Homework Assignments

Assignment 1: Questions for the candidate

Happy, here are the standard questions asked of every candidate. Answer them as you would for the RfA. Spend a little extra effort answering question 3---think about what 'smoking guns' might exist out there.

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

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

A: As an admin, I hope to continue working, as I have, cooperatively with others in normal article space. But with the addition of admin "tools", I hope to spend additional time assisting editors at WP:RFPP and WP:AFD. Since my interests have to do with political matters, RFPP is essential when facing vandalism and heated edit warring.

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

A: I'd have to say that my best contributions are within two closely related articles: Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. Both have achieved FA status as a result of my major additions and copyedits. I am very proud of them because they are controversial topics; as a result, it took me two GANs and five FACs to promote Mr. Reagan's article. I have cooperated diligently with fellow editors on the articles' respective talk page, both Republicans and Democrats, to produce well written, NPOV articles. My good article contributions include: Pat Nixon, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Dick Cheney, Tear down this wall, and George H. W. Bush. Many of these I completely rewrote. Other major contributions and articles that I have written can be found here and a summary of my best contributions can be found here.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Well yes, I have been involved in edit conflicts. This largely stems from my interest in political articles, where things can get quite contentious. Of course I try not to edit war; I've never been blocked and never violated 3RR, but I will not hesitate to stand up for what is right and what abides by core Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Previously, I have brought the pending issue(s) up at the article discussion page; there, I am always willing to discuss it with users who disagree with me or others in an attempt to end the edit war and make peace. Recently, a large edit war got underway at the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, wherein three users were failing to abide by an established concensus and 3RR was violated many times. I requested full protection so that users many cool down and reach a compromise. I was personally attacked by two of the users who engaged in stalking and disruptive behavior, so instead of firing right back, I reported the primary user at WP:WQA, where questions arose regarding sockpuppetry. Citing the evidence, I requested an IP check at WP:RFCU. The results proved that the users were indeed all sockpuppets and resulted in four permanent blocks. The Wright controversy page has since been unprotected and we, as a concensus from both sides of the political aisle, have been able to further improve the article.

I know that additional edit wars will erupt in the future, but I believe that I have enough sense and the proper judgement to keep the discussion focused on the matter at hand. It's what I've done in the past, and what I will continue to do in the future.

These are excellent answers, the only thing that I would do differently is to link your actual reports. Don't make readers go in search of reports/issues, link to them directly. Eg, link to your report at RFCU (or better yet, the results so that people can see the whole incident.) Likewise, link to the WQA incident so that people can see what happened. When you run you want to do as much of the work as possible so that people can see you with minimal effort. That being said:

Assignment 2: Get involved in Adminly areas

This is an ongoing assignment.

As I mentioned above, one of the key areas to get involved in when preparing for an RfA is XfD's. Try to do 3-5 XfD's a day. That won't take too much of your time (10-15 minutes) but it will help establish a track record there that people can look at. When you participate try to give thoughtful policy based decisions. Never simply say "keep" or "delete" and never simply reason "per above/nom." Show how you think. (And revisit your answers---you'll find that there are policies/guidelines you were not familiar with that others might cite.)

As you mentioned RFPP that would be a good place to get involved as well. Participate in talk page discussions there and where applicable, you might be able to interject thought into proposed protections. Again, don't worry about spending too much time there at any one time, but try to visit it a 3-5 times a week.

Unfortunately, there isn't much to do at RFPP, so I would encourage spending some time in another "adminly area." That could be ANI/Help Desk/a policy area such as RS/BLP/V/etc. Find something that interests you and get invovled.

While doing this will help with an RfA, the purpose of getting involved in these areas isn't to pass the RfA. The purpose is to get exposure to the broader wiki world that you might not have encountered. I don't believe in drive by assignments, but rather I want people to make a footprint in areas that will help wikipedia and help them as admin's. That way they can get feedback and learn from the people who are regulars in the community. It's also to show an modicum of understanding of the Policies and guidelines that affect those different areas.Balloonman (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... I will begin doing that tomorrow. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll wait a few days before giving you another "homework assignment." The main focus of our coaching is going to be getting you exposure in new areas, that is to give you some depth. There will also be some 'essay' type assignments as well to ensure a breadth of knowledge.Balloonman (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at your edits today. I'm glad to see some RFPP and AFD participation. I was particularly pleased to see that your AFD contribs aren't isolated to "political" subjects, include both Keep/Delete, and are more than just drive by comments. I'll add more tonight, but wanted to document my feedback here. (I try to document my observations both positive/negative on the coaching so that others can see what guidance I've given.)Balloonman (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look forward to it. Happyme22 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Assignment 3: AFD/DVR excercises

The following is a test Balloonman designed to make sure that admin coachees can assess AFD/DRVs. Most of the cases are actual cases that were closed one way and overturned by DRV. All of the cases were at AfD or DRV.

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it. Then, return to your coaching page and comment on each entry in question. You can also click on the article link itself to read the article as it stood at the time of the AfD/DRV. Write whether you would delete the page or not based upon the discussion alone. If you would, explain why you would. If you would not delete it, state why. Remember to pay attention to the date/time the article was listed for AfD and assume that you are editing shortly after the most recent comment.

Do not use Wikipedia to see if the page still exists or if it was deleted. For best results, once you've made a decision about a page, don't go back and change your answer based upon subsequent exercises. But if a subsequent review has you questioning/changing your position, discuss mention it under the latest question.

Exercise 1
I would delete this article, mainly because it violates WP:RS and WP:V. The only references were to other Wikipedia articles, which is in direct violation of WP:SPS. The style of writing also somewhat-violated WP:TONE, as it is largely "gamer lingo". There was a merge in question, but there is little to merge, as most of the content was made up of specific points only relevent to this. Happyme22 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing about AfD's is that you are looking at consensus via strength of argument via policy/guidelines. Just because the majority of !votes said to keep, doesn't necessarily mean that you have to keep if the delete votes are stronger and policy based while the keep votes are "weak." This was actually, a case that I closed, and I closed this as a keep despite personally thinking the article should be deleted. That being said, if you can cite the reasons why you discard "consensus" go for it. Remember, AFD is not a vote, but rather a "consensus." Of course, your answering this question this way, kind of makes the later exercises a little bit of a waste ;-)

One other thing, when you respond to issues where there is numbering using the # make sure that you respond with #: (with the appropriate number of : to indent it properly. That way you keep the numbering correct.)Balloonman (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 2
In that article's state at the time of the AfD, I would have deleted it per WP:RS and WP:V. Although User:Trident13 made good points, I did not find the sixteen references that he repeatedly reffered to. If citations were added from independent sources, than I would have kept the article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The big problem that I have with this article is that the references are lacking. If references could be provided, then I would have not problem keeping it. I included this article for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates an alternative to closing an AfD or voting on an AfD. Rather than closing the discussion Redfarmer relisted it for further discussion. When he relisted it, it could have easily been closed as a delete, but he probably didn't like that option so he relisted it. An option for number 1 would be to relist the issue for discussion. The second reason why I selected this article was because I felt that this represented a case where consensus could be over written by sound reasoning. Based upon the observations made in the "strong keep" I would have had no problem with somebody citing them as proof of notability and thus deserving of an article---eventhough the 'count' said otherwise. Closing debates isn't necessarily about counting votes---it can also be about the strength of the argument. To me the final argument was compelling---perhaps that's because I'm a military brat.Balloonman (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 3
I would keep this article because there is information about the subject in third party sources. The sources need to be improved upon, and of course clean up is needed, but it does pass WP:BIO. Happyme22 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You might find this article interesting... the guy who argued for keep is one of the few wikipedians who has an article about him on Wikipedia. He is a staunch inclusionist. It is good to know about people with agenda's such as Nicholson Baker. There is also a group whose sole purpose is to {{rescue}} articles from potential deletion. This group is knowledgable about deletion policies and often saves articles that otherwise will be deleted. I also picked this case because you will see a lot of articles with one or two votes like this one. Where there isn't much said in the AfD debate. I don't think a merge would be appropriate at this point, although you could !vote for a merge. If you are interested in how/why this was saved, take a look at the DVR related to it. The DVR is incorrect in many of the claims, but it does show why it was saved.Balloonman (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 4
Oh, this was a tough one. There was a good point on notablity with the police officers, as brought up on the AfD page, but that seems to be the only notable fact. I probably would have kept it because of the WP:N point. Happyme22 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't believe that "super regional" malls are inherently notable. But this goes to a long standing dispute on Notability. Some camps believe that "inherent" notability is important and should be defined by people who are familiar with the subject---in this case people who work on the shopping center's project beleive that 1 million square feet of retail equates to notability. The other camp believes that there is no such things as inherent notability. These two camps are constantly at each others throats. It is why a lot of wiki-projects have their own "criteria for notability." WikiProject Poker came up with our criteria of notability because we wanted to "define" what we considered notable both to argue for certain people, but more to eliminate non-notables. Our attempt to 'define' poker players who are inherently notable created a huge flap. Officially, the Poker Player notability guidelines have no official status, except that they are an "essay" of the Wikiproject. Another example is professional atheletes. The problem, however with these "essays" is that sometimes they become ingrained as fact within the AfD process. WP:BIO now states that anybody who has played in a professional sport at the highest level is inherently notable. That means, that the person who in 1934 was called up to play in a single baseball game, had one at bat, struck out is by definition notable enough for an article---even if said person never did another thing in their life! Likewise, when these Mall articles come up, there is "precedence" that even if the mall isn't notable, if it fits certain criteria, it will be salvaged---if for no other reason that people from the project will come to it's rescue. NOTE: It is not considered canvassing to notify wikiprojects when a page with one of their tags is up for deletion... in fact, some consider it rude not to.Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 5
I would have deleted because it lacks reliable sources (WP:RS). The circumstances are similar to the first exercise. Happyme22 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I included it in part because here the consensus differed slightly from the first one. The first one could have been kept as a keep due to "consensus", but this one is a little more vague.Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 6
Although the votes were to keep this article, and places are notable per WP:GEOG, I'd say it would probably be best to delete it for lack of reliable sources (WP:RS) to verify its existence. I searched Google, and could not find even a single entry on Vanderbilt. Happyme22 (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The logic used to preserve this was a little bit faulty. Not all places are inherently notable. It is a common practice that places that are larger than say a village are are notable, but a place with 50 people wouldn't be. But you are correct, it wasn't. Of course, part of the challenge was to evaluate based on the "discussion only." In real life, checking google wouldn't hurt ;-)Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 7
Again, this is very similar to exercises one and five, and I would delete it per WP:RS and WP:V. Happyme22 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I ran into these three exercises shortly after becoming an admin in the order presented... and not back to back to back. I reluctantly kept the first one, then deleted the second and third. After seeing the 2nd and 3rd, I went back and relisted the first one to get a broader perspective. In hind sight, I could have easily justified deleting it referencing the other two discussions---or deleting the first like you would have. The point that I wanted to bring up here is that our actions aren't done in a vacuum. How you close one of these might have a bearing on how you close the others! Would it make sense to keep one and close two identical articles? Similarly, there may be precedent that you are unaware of that might be used to override a deletion down the road.Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 8
Here's a perfect example of a speedy keep which follows the guideline at WP:N regarding the continuation of notability. Happyme22 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep and perhaps a warning against the person who nominated it. This should result in further investigation---particularly since a few people have indicated that this is a bad faith nom resulting from my nominating an article for deletion. In real life this was taken (by another party) to ANI. The person who made the nom became one of my big supporters during my own RfA.Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exercise 9
This is a tough one, but I think the issue has to be dealt with in two ways. First I would delete the article per WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. But I would also suggest to the editors of the page that if they want to retain their list, they should incorporate it as prose, not as a list into the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article as a part of the plot summary. That would abide by WP:NOT#INFO, another point raised in the discussion. Happyme22 (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a very tough one, one that I probably wouldn't tackle in real life until I had plenty of experience on my own. It's one of those cases that you just know will probably be taken to Deletion Review and will probably result in numerous posts on the closing admin's pages. That being said, I agree, this should be deleted as is and merged back into the main article.Balloonman (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV

DRV Exercise 1
In this case, it depends on the image. As User:Sceptre brought up, this appears to be a free alternative. This also brings us to WP:LOGO, guidelines numbers 2 and 3. This image could violate number two, as the logo seems to represent a notorious group that is not very beneficial to the internet, although inclusion of the logo is supported by the first part of the second sentence of guideline number three of WP:LOGO. In this case, since a source was provided at the request of User:LaraLove, and LOGO guideline number three seems to support the use of a logo on a page relevant to such logo, I would overturn the deletion. Happyme22 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would too.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
DRV Exercise 2
I would relist the article, as suggested by the concensus. It was a bit premature of User:SorryGuy to close the article as he did so quickly, although the result would have probably been the same. Happyme22 (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it probably shouldn't have been closed early, but a few tags on the article would probably suffice.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
DRV Exercise 3
This is a spin-off of Exercise 6 above. I would overturn the deletion and place it back at AfD in the hopes that somebody could find a citation to verify the true existence of Vanderbilt, the Netherlands. If not, than I would support deletion of the article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
DRV Exercise 4
This actually appears to be an AFD, but I will still delete it because, as I've said before, no verification has been provided regarding the existence of Vanderbilt. Happyme22 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wanted to give the sequence of events, so that you could see how articles sometimes goes.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Assignment 4: Policy and Guideline Questions

As an admin nobody expects you to know all of the rules, but they do expect you to be able to research the policies and guidelines--show me that you can do the research and navigate them. These questions deliberately do not include links and some are deliberately vague and open to interpretation. If the question is vague, demonstrate your expertise of the subject by covering the different options. In your own words, citing the applicable policies/guidelines/essays/etc (and link to the applicable policy/guideline/essay), please answer the following:

1 Why are the criteria for speedy deletion so strict?

The criteria are strict because, as WP:CSD says, before tagging, editors should consider whether the article "could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion." Speedy deletion should be used, however, if the given article falls under any one of the given twelve SD criterion.

The criteria are particularly strict when it comes to images. Because Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia", free content is highly smiled upon. I've managed to learn this through my work. We do not want to imfringe on others' work, nor do we want to become engaged in any libelous activity, so the WP:CSD images are there to tell editors what's right and what's wrong for the sake of Wikipedia. Happyme22 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent answer. CSD is also strict because deleting people's articles can turn newbie users off. Deleting an article can bite newbies. As for images, part of the reason why images are stricter is because of the way things are licensed here on Wikipedia. As they are licensed under the GDLF, it means others can use them. But if we don't have the right to use them in the first place, our using them may release images into the public domain that we don't have the right to release.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

2 What alternatives to speedy deletion are there?

There are other alternatives to speedy deletion, such as improving the article (if applicable), merging the content into another article, or simply redirecting the page. WP:CSD gives assistance regarding when it is right to speedily delete an article or not. If the article does not fall under the speedy deletion category, but an editor feels that there are significant problems within it, they can begin a discussion at WP:AFD, or for uncontroversial deletions, they may use WP:PROD. Happyme22 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the FIRST coachee to get this right! I have never had somebody include "improving the article" as one of the alternatives! They get the other options, but never that. It does show that you are an editor first and foremost.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

3 What is a "level three warning" and why is it significant?

There are multiple level three warnings:

WP:3RR: This is a policy on Wikipedia, thus it is mandatory that every editor abide by it. Editors cannot perform more than three reverts in a given article in a single day. Editors who violate this rule may be blocked by an admin for up to twenty-four hours the first time, and possibly longer period for repeat offenders.

Level three warning on vandalism: According to WP:WARN, warning templates are to dissuade bad-faith editors and assist good-faith ones. The level three warning is the "cease and desist", and it is then assumed that the editor is acting in bad faith. Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Level three is the first level to assume bad faith, it is significant for administrators because, as a general rule, most admins won't block somebody until they have been given a level 3 (or higher) warning. If you do block somebody without a level 3 warning, then it is very possible that somebody else might unblock them. At the same time, this is the type of case where IAR often comes into place---sometimes it is better to block first in the case of a persistent vandal who is actively causing disruption.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

4 Under what circumstances can an established editor be blocked?

Established editors may be blocked for a multitude of reasons. Per WP:BLOCK, an editor may be blocked for protection, disruption (including persistent vandalism; persistent gross incivility; persistent harassment; persistent spamming; edit warring or revert warring; breaching the sock puppetry policy; persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive), open proxies (those on proxie servers), if they have evaded a block, to enforce a ban, or to secure the account of a confirmed deceased editor.

Established editors should not be blocked if: an admin is in a dispute with another user, to "cool down" a user, a user requests a block on themselves, or to record negative events in a user's block log. Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent answers again. While established editors are sometimes given a little more leeway than less established users, they can still be blocked for all of the same reasons. One thing to keep in mind with established users is the notion of not templating the regulars. In other words, it is generally regarded as a best practice to leave a personalized note to an experienced editor as compared to a template.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

5 How long can an IP address be blocked?

There are many things to consider when blocking an IP address. Admins considering blocking an IP address should first check it to see if it is affecting anyone else. Per WP:BLOCK and WP:Blocking IP addresses, indefinite blocks should very rarely, if ever, be used on an IP address. There is not a specific amount of time that an IP address should be blocked, but blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia and not necessarily the "punishment" of the IP. IP blocks should begin as a few hours in the hopes that the user will move on, but if he/she comes back, the block may have to be extended. Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: There are two types of IPs that get special attention, what are they and how are they handled?

The three (correct me if I'm wrong) types of "special" IPs are dynamic, shared, and sensitive.

Dynamic IP addresses may change from time to time, influencing an autoblock.

Shared IP addresses are those used on proxy servers. With them, it is impossible to distinguish between indivdual users, so blocking one may affect a positively contributing user. Before blocking them, run a WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookup to determine if the IP belongs to a school or a proxy server.

Sensitive IP addresses are those belonging to major governmental organizations, including the United States Congress, Government of Canada, and Parliament of the U.K. It is recommended that these be only blocked by experienced admins, and it is mandatory that the Wikimedia Foundation be informed if/when they occur. Happyme22 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sensitive IP's are one of the two that I was looking for, the other is school IP's. School IP's can be blocked for up to a year. People are generally more willing to block school IP's for longer and with less warning.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

6 How many times can an editor make the same edit before violating 3RR? Can an editor be blocked before they reach that number?

To violate WP:3RR, an editor must make the same edit three times on a single page in a given day. If an editor reverts twice on two different pages, that is not a violation of 3RR, but it may be an indication that that editor is engaging in poor faith and being disruptive. Editors can only be blocked before they perform three reverts if, like I just mentioned, they are reverting mulitple edits on mutliple pages and engaging in vandalism. Happyme22 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the fourth edit that becomes the violation. They can make 3 edits safely it is the fourth one that can sting---and generally only after a warning has been issued. Also, reverting vandalism/BLP doesn't count towards the 3RR violations.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

7 How can you tell if an editor (whether an account or an anon IP) is a sockpuppet?

I should know this one quite well... To tell if an editor is a sockpuppet, other editors must first notice similarities in editing behavior between the multiple users (as was done here). They can then take their case to WP:SSP and fill out a form, providing evidence through diffs. If the general concensus is highly suspicious about the persons in question, an editor may request check user and cite the mulitple conversations, as well as diffs. Happyme22 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Again a very strong answer.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

8 What is "rollback"?

According to Wikipedia:Reverting#Rollback, Rollback is a way to revert vandalism, granted to administrators and other trusted users. The tool reverts all consequent edits made by a single user and is much faster than undoing a revision, as it does not load an edit page, force an editor click the 'save' button, or even look at all the diffs. For convience and speed, the tool adds an automatic edit summary, and marks it as minor. I have been granted this tool. Happyme22 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

9 What is the difference between protection and semi-protection?

The differences between semi and full protection have to do with who can and cannot edit the protected page. Articles that are semi protected are uusually done so because of persistent vandalism, while articles that are fully protected are done so because of edit wars/disputes. In semi-protection, established editors (those with accounts) older than four days can edit the article (those autoconfirmed). In full protection, only administrators can edit pages. Happyme22 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ExcellentBalloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

10 An article has been vandalized several times. Under what circumstances can it be protected or semi-protected?

If vandalism is persistent but temporary, talk pages are frequently vandalized, or talk pages of blocked IP addresses are edited in bad faith, temporary semi protection may be in order. Indefinite semi protection may be applied when pages are constantly vandalized (90% of edits), or when biographies are subject to constant vandalism in violation of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. WP:TFA's are rarely protected, unless they are very heavily vandalized.

Full protection should be implemented amidst content disputes (a lot of edit warring), or when talk pages of blocked users are heavily, constantly vandalized. All of the above was based on policies from WP:SPP. Happyme22 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ExcellentBalloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

11 Under what circumstances would you invoke IAR? Can you provide a scenario where IAR might apply?

WP:IAR can be invoked when you as an editor feel that a rule (guideline) on Wikipedia prevents you from improving Wikipedia. According to WP:WIARM, most rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. I actually have a perfect, true story that I was involved in regarding IAR. There was a considerable debate over what to call Nancy Reagan when reffering to her in sentences: Nancy, Reagan, Mrs. Reagan, Nancy Reagan, First Lady, etc. because calling her 'Reagan' could cause confusion with her husband and calling her 'Nancy' seemed too unencyclopeadic to some. Following the MOS by always reffering to her as 'Reagan' would lead to confusion with Ronald, so we invoked IAR until we could amend the MOS naming conventions regarding the names of family members (see our amendment here). The discussion can be found here. Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not familiar with WP:WIARM. But the way I look at IAR is that you can use it to avoid wikilawyering. There are times where what the rules say don't make sense in a specific context. For example, the article Military brat (U.S. subculture) using the dab (U.S. subculture). Now general rules are that you don't use the () unless there is a main article that doesn't use it. Unfortunately, with military brats we can't write a meaningful global article due to lack of meaningful research. Thus, you either end up with an article that gets tons of tags for being US centric or you have the (). In this case, it is easier to ignore the rules and use the (). It's also a way to say, "You may know the rules better than me, but this makes more sense in this particular situation."Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

12 A page has been deleted several times, and keeps being recreated. What options do you have?

If it continues to be recreated by a user (anon or established), you should first warn the user (see WP:WARN) with the {{Uw-create1}}. If he/she continues, then you may fully protect the page. Happyme22 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow up What if the page is being created by multiple or anonymous users?

If that is the case, the page being created may be fully protected, preventing any editing whatsoever. 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

13 Explain how one goes about changing one's name

There are options to change one's username. According to WP:U, name changes can only be made by bureaucrats. Requests should be made at WP:CHU. Once a name is changed, all contribs you have made will be reattributed to your new name. But your old name may also be recreated by someone else, so to avoid impersonation, WP:CHU recommends recreating the old account yourself. Happyme22 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah recreate the old name yourself and have it redirect to your current account.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

14 What types of names can be blocked?

Per WP:IU, inapropriate usernames include: those that are misleading, promotional, offensive to others, or disruptive. This also applies to signatures.

Usernames that are obviously completely inapropriate are eligiable for an immediate indefinite block, and should be listed at WP:UAA. Any admin has the right to block the account. Those that are inapropriate but have no disruptive intent may be blocked indefinitely but the block should only affect that account. Disruptive usernames should also be blocked indefinitely.

Those usernames which are not obviously inapropriate but may fail one of the inapropriate username criteria should not be immediately blocked, but a discussion should be started with the account's creator in the hopes that they will create a new account. Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Take a look at User:Yuckfoo. This is clearly a play on "fuckyou." What are your thoughts about this user and how would you treat him?Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

15 You come across a page with material you consider to be highly libelous material on the page. Others don't believe it is, what should you do?

Well per WP:LIBEL, it is the editors' job(s) to ensure that content on Wikipedia is not defamatory. I would contact the users in disagreement with me and point out specific places on the page that I feel are libelous. But I would also keep an open mind because they must have a reason for disagreeing with me, so they would hopefully respond and we can reach an agreement on what to do. Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a stronger policy, take a look at WP:BLP.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

16 Somebody makes a legal threat, what do you do?

Per WP:LEGAL, I would contact the user immediately in a way other than Wikipedia (email, etc.). I would also report the note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hopefully, that user is blocked per "No legal threats" at WP:LEGAL. Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Another essay to read is WP:DOLT. Legal threats is an area where I advise caution---Personally, I would definitely post on ANI and let somebody who is comfortable with this handle it. There are people who are experienced with legal threats.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

17 What are your personal criteria for a potential admin?

Haha what an ironic question... Well I know that admins are in a position of high regard and trust, so first and foremost, the person must be trustworthy. I also like when admins can relate to me and what I edit in Wikipedia, so many contributions in article space are also a must. I also like open-minded admins and those that are not too quick to judge. Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

18 You are involved in a content dispute with another editor that is starting to get nasty. The other editor then vandalizes your talk page. What do you do?

I would first remove the vandalism to my talk page and post a WP:WARN template for vandalism on their talk page. If the disagreement continues, I will not hesitate to request a third opinion at WP:RfC. If the feud continues to escalate, I would request intervention from WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. If the user acts in an uncivil manner, WP:WQA may also be appropriate. Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The one thing I didn't want to see is that you would block the user. My position is that when you are personally involved in a conflict, never act unilaterally, get somebody else to do the dirty work. (This does not count for when you warn somebody of vandalism then they attack your page, it's only when you are in an ongoing debate with somebody and it turns nasty.)Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your time with these. We're in no rush, your contributions to other aspects of the project are more important.Balloonman (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Balloonman, for you help and constructive criticism. I'm sure it will help me in my eventual nom. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Little note, I don't do this for your nom, I do it to help you be a better wikipedian/admin---I'm a teacher at heart, so I've found that the place where I can be of most service is teaching/helping. It took me a while to find my Niche, but I think I finally have. I also learn a lot from working with my coachees---they always know something that I didn't know or have a different perspective than I expected.

I've been very impressed with your responses so far, my impression is growing stronger and I'm getting more comfortable with your eventual nom. Something you might want to think about is co-noms. I know that Sandy has volunteered. Her nom is HUGE. There are very few people that Sandy supports, let alone noms. Her presence at RfA's is usually a strong sign one way or another. I don't know if there is anybody else that you've considered. If you haven't, you might want to consider getting a hard core obvious liberal that you've worked with and has a strong reputation here. As Sandy mentioned there may be some concerns about your politics, but if you can get somebody from the other side of the aisle to talk about your striving for NPOV that could be huge.

Finally, just as an FYI, I plan on taking another close look at your edits this weekend.

Well I certainly appreciate your help as a teacher and a friend. To comment on your statement, I am very honored to have you and Sandy behind me. I also have a liberal editor in mind whom I have repeatedly worked with at Reagan; we have both gained great respect for one another, and somewhat of a friendship. I'll ask him tomorrow. As for my edits: go ahead, I have nothing to hide. I haven't had much time to comment at AfDs, but I promise I will do plenty of those tomorrow. There was a minor incident when I was at a Memorial Day party. I forgot to log out when I went to the restroom and came back to find my brother had vandalized Ron and Nancy Reagan's pages (two edits total). But I reverted them and apologized to the editors. I hope that won't hurt me, as I explained the situation to all of them and apologized profusely; apparently they shrugged it off as not a big deal.

See ya tomorrow! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO... you have to love siblings. The vandalism won't hurt you as you fixed it and it was on articles you cared about. The bigger issue for a potential admin is account security. What will prevent your brother from doing this again? Vandalizing a page is one thing, but what would happen if your brother had blocked some accounts or deleted the mainpage? Or ANI? While we can fix just about anything, some of the fixes may take time and if you block an account, it could chase somebody off.Balloonman (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

The big push of my Coaching is to have a regular editor review. That way I can speak intelligently of you during your RfA and I know that what I am saying is accurate. I do this as a running commentary as thoughts come to mind, so sometimes what I say may be contradicted later on. I don't 'clean-up' these comments because I want you to see the thought process and how others might see it.

IMO, your article work is great. Your history of developing articles and gaining consensus is without doubt. You've also established yourself as a person who can seek NPOV despite your own political stance. Thus, I didn't focus too much on your article building. What I wanted to see was your work on XfDs and other adminly areas. Unfortunately, I didn't see too much there. Again, it doesn't take much to establish a footprint in XFD's or other adminly arenas. The footprint is helpful because it lets others see how you think, but it also allows others to influence you. Again, I encourage you to spend just a little bit of time in XfD's and another adminly arena.Balloonman (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that I have not taken your advice, as that is not the case at all. In all honesty, I have not had a lot of time on Wikipedia in the last few days. What I've been having to do is check my watchlist, revert any vandaliam, cm on talk pages, and log off (except in the rare instance that I did get to add some much-needed information to the John Hagee article). I actually had the honor of meeting first lady Laura Bush last night too. But I have some time tonight, so I have commented at a few AfDs, and I will attempt to answer the questions above. I truly thank you for all your hard work with me, and I want you to know that it is not ignored. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I know it's not ignored, but I was just doing one of my reviews, and commenting as they came up... we have plenty of time ;-) Balloonman (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

You probably want to stay away from any nom from me for a while... sorry.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And why would that be? Happyme22 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To make a long story short, I kind of blew it this past weekend. Dihydrogen Monoxide, who I was coaching, decided that he wanted to run for RfA eventhough I felt that it was a little premature. I felt that he should wait, as was originally agreed upon. But I firmly believed that he should be an admin, so I succumbed to peer pressure and went ahead an nominated him despite my belief that his RfA would fail (notice would, not should.) Instead, he had tremendous sucess in his RfA---at one point, over 300 supports.

While I believe that he should be an admin, there were some distinct concerns that I had---but failed to mention in my Nomination. Usually I mention weaknesses and why they should be ignored. In this case, I didn't know how to answer "why" so I begged the question and didn't include what I felt were failings. When he had so much suceess and nobody mentioned his failings... and I was having a bad night... I withdrew my nom and opposed. I did eventually instate my nom and support, but the damage was already done. H20's RfA, which appeared to be on course for a record pass, went into a tailspin (apparently he did something off wiki as well.) He ended up withdrawing his RfA and temporarily retired from Wikipedia.

My actions were not justified, but my execution was even worse. I think I could have introduced my concerns and come "clean" in a better way. But I didn't. Needless to say, right now, my name no longer carries the weight it did just last week at RfAs. In fact, several people have gone so far as to suggest I leave Wikipedia and others have declared that I would be wise never to nom a candidate again because that candidate would garner default opposes.

NOTE: This is probably the most I've said on the subject since that night. I want to address what happened and clarify what I did, but I'm not sure of what I can say.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I heard about that... through the grapevine. But I wasn't completely sure what had happened. Thank you for cluing me in on this. IMHO, you should not leave Wikipedia at all, for you are a tremendous editor dedicated to teaching and helping others (as you yourself said on this very page). But some temporary time away might be a nice way to calm yourself down and get things together again.

As for me - I still value you as a teacher and a friend. And to tell you the truth, I would not consider going to another admin coach. That said, if you recommend staying away from a nom from you I will respect your wishes. I'll ask SandyGeorgia when the time comes and my liberal friend Arcayne. If you would like to give me more "assignments" please feel free to and I will complete them. But I am open to anything.

P.S. - I am still very grateful for everything you have done to aid me in growing as an editor. When do you think is the right approximate time for my RfA? Happyme22 (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think that if you to have run previously you had a chance of passing. With the exception of H2O, I don't like to nom people unless I think they are both ready and capable of passing an RfA. (I messed up with H20.) You, IMHO, are clearly admin material, the potential 'holes' I saw with you were more along the lines of passing an RfA. Thus, my approach for you was to fill those gaps. The things that were lacking were that you didn't have any evidence of knowing policy---this page clearly shows that you either know policy OR you know how to look it up. I don't believe in gaming the system, you've proven to me that you know wikipedia. The other things that I felt that you needed are the types of things you can accomplish on your own... and that's participation in adminly areas. Again, my advice was to make a footprint in XfD's and one other "adminly area." I push footprints because it allows others to respond to you and you learn more about the area than if you make drive by edits to a lot of areas. I like to see people spending a month or more developing these footprints because they learn more that way. You'll start to see people citing policies/guidelines that you weren't familiar with. You might also discover that a policy/guidelines is interpreted by the community in a manner you didn't expect. For example, today you might see somebody make an argument citing a policy/guideline you had never heard of. Tomorrow, you run across a similar scenario and cite the same policy/guideline. Somebody else may then come along and point out the exception to the policy/guideline and explain to you how you misapplied it. Thus, while establishing footprints may help you pass an RfA, the real goal is to help you understand policies/guidelines that you may not know/understand.

As for when... you COULD run today and have a decent chance of passing. Right now, there has been a strong trend for passing editors as compared to vandal fighters. That being said, I would probably wait 2-3 weeks to get more exposure to XfDs/adminly areas---I think that experience will serve you well when you become an admin and will help others evaluate your potential as an admin.

As for noming... I have no problem with making a nom---I still believe I can write strong noms. (I know where your weaknesses are and I don't think they are insurmountable.) But the choice is ultimately yours... having me right now as a nom might cause some knee jerk opposes---which wouldn't be fair to you. It might also cause some people to dig deeper into your contributions (again not fair to you.) Finally, it might cause some people to weigh weaknesses harsher---again, not fair to you. That is why I made the comments above that I did.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you are the expert :) I think two to three weeks is a superb idea. I try to contribute to XfDs as much as I can, but that's not all the time. I truly am genuinely concerned, however, about Wikipedia articles that may fail the general criteria and I'm not simply voting on them because you suggested I do so. Of course, thank God you suggested I do so because it has encourged me to become more involved there, especially at AfD.

I am still open to a nom from you. If I truly am admin material, I should have little to hide in my contributions. As for the "knee-jerk opposes", let's give this two or three weeks and go from there. Thanks for everything and best of luck. --Happyme22 (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, thank God you suggested I do so because it has encourged me to become more involved there, especially at AfD. That's another reason why I ask people to establish footprints in 1 or 2 areas that they are interested in. By getting involved in an area that you aren't familiar with, you might discover another way that you can contribute to the project---and some of these areas are always looking for admins. If, by encouraging people to try new areas I get just 1 in 4 coachees to continue beyond their RfA, then it will have been a net positive.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

Alright, Balloonman, SandyGeorgia and Arcayne have both agreed to co-nominate me when the time comes. First of all, Balloonman, do you feel that I am ready to be an admin? I have been participating in AfDs and FACs more recently, my GA article count has gone up, I have broadened my horizons, and I feel that I have improved greatly as an editor and potential admin from your teaching. But what do you think (presuming you still have this page watchlisted)? I know our set mid-June target has passed, as well as that awful experience with Dihydrogen Monoxide, but I still would like to go ahead with this RfA. What about after the 4th of July? Say the Monday or Tuesday after? If you feel that I am admin material, and throw your full support behind me, then does that sound like a good time to/for you? Happyme22 (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a closer look this evening, but I can't see why not... you were borderline a month or so ago... you probably would have passed... your big concern is that people might !vote against you due to your being involved a political stance. Which is why I think taking time to develop your "admin area exposure" was helpful.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)