User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 7

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This...

really surprised me. I'm a bit baffled how you went from "can't find a reason to not support" to "not supporting". I'm sure you have a good reason (you always do :-), I'm just saying I was surprised....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a combination of things... the long absence kind of bothered me to begin with... but I've overlooked absences before. But Dorftrottel made some decent enough points that combined with the absence, that I decided to change. Dorf's post was AFTER I posted...Balloonman (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! (Does dorftrottel know that you switched because of his participation? Oh the irony...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All the waffling is making my head spin! And I still can't find a good reason to support or oppose. Enigma ^message 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Couching

Thankyou for the advise, ive adjusted my user page accordingly. My edit count in the Jackson arena is high, that should change when i finally get those articles to their respective FA and GA statues's. Hopefully within the next month ill only be editing them to revert vandalism. I have spent a lot of time reading the admins notiveboard but rarely comment because i dont want to get in the admins busy way. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 13:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing though, being an admin isn't about being an admin! An admin has no more "real" authority than a non-admin. The only difference is that they have a few extra tools. Anybody can be an admin and anybody can participate in "admin" discussions. Everybody's opinion counts the same (although you may develop certain reputations), but the weight of your reasoning is what matters not whether or not you have the mop. By participating in admin discussions, others start to see you as an admin---Dihydrogen Monoxide is the perfect example. The other key to becoming an admin is to keep your nose clean (that is where Dihydrogen has gone wrong in the past---but he's focusing on that now.) Show maturity, civility, and responsibility in all of your posts. Help others, be friendly, and act like an admin.Balloonman (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do. Thankyou. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there im back, ive been reading a few RFA's, even commenting on some. I noticed that some people oppose on the bases that the nominee was coached. While i still havent got my coach ;-(, im concerned that it might actually be counter productive at nomination. What are your thoughts on this? --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Realist, this is a new trend that has just started to pop up. Probably as a result of the Coaching Project getting off the ground again. I think for some people Coaching is a great idea---but a lot depends on who the coach is and what is done. Some coaches are doing a really good job, some are just repackaging people in an effort to get the 'prestige' of being a coach/coachee. When I coach, I try to encourage my coachees to see what I do and what I expect---I am probably one of the harsher coaches because I don't want coaching to be a rubber stamp. I want people to look at my candidates and go, "Well, Balloonman was the coach, therefore I know he's good." But that is also why I've been getting asked a lot about coaching lately. Some don't have that standard and it shows. In my personal opinion, the best way to get a coach is to find somebody you like, an admin you respect. If he has coachees check out his coaching page see if it is a rubber stamp or meaningful. THen ask that person---don't wait for somebody to come to you. Again, point to the things that I suggested on your page as areas you need to work on.Balloonman (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for replying, yours. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Q5

It was Wikipedia:Arbitration committee that I nominated for deletion, not the ArbCom case I was involved in. Do you fancy rephrasing the question? As it is my answer will end up quite long and complicated trying to explain two different events (that were around a year apart). -- Naerii 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That is to say, the ArbCom case (CharlotteWebb) was over a year ago, and the nomination of arbcom for deletion was in early March and a result of a bad day and the Mantanmoreland dramas. The two are not related. -- Naerii 21:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

UpdatedBalloonman (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiny bit of help

I just created the page on Operation Killer and was wondering if you could help out expanding it. I remembered how much you like military articles and I thought you might be willing to help out for this page. If you could take a look at it, I would be most appreciative. Thanks! --Sharkface^T/_C 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks! I'll happily accept your nominations. The reason I signed on for admin coaching was because I wasn't sure about running. I didn't want any snowball fails! Thanks for your trust, PeterSymonds | talk 03:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the nom and advice. Bank Holiday today so I should have plenty of time to answer questions (here's hoping!). Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 05:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just noticed a mistake in the nom. At ADCO, the highest number indicated a total edit count, including deleted edits; and the lowest number indicated the total without deleted edits. I currently have around 500 deleted edits, not 5000. Sorry for the lack of clarity. PeterSymonds | talk 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust and advice! I hope DHMO's nom can wait; I waited for a few hours but he's on Australian time. I've left a message on his talk page in any case. PeterSymonds | talk 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would you consider being my co-admin coach? I currently have User:Useight as an admin coach, but I could always use another one. I really like your approach to the RfA process and I found your essay at User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA to be extremely helpful and informative. I already have a coaching page at User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching and I was wondering if you would be willing to co-coach me. Thanks, Razorflame 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, have you talked to Useight about it? I won't even consider it until/unless you talk to him first.Balloonman (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but I will ask him now. Thanks for letting me know that I have to do this before I ask another person to co-coach. Thanks, Razorflame 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Asked him here. Thanks, Razorflame 15:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

His response here. In short, he said that he would love to have you on as a co-coach! Cheers, Razorflame 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are now a co-coach! Cheers, Razorflame 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of how busy you are, I believe that it would be a good idea to just leave you alone right now and just have a single coach for now. Thanks for the consideration. Cheers, Razorflame 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, sorry it didn't work out... I spent about 5 hours the other day reviewing Risker for her upcoming nom. 4 Hours reviewing my newest admin coachee. 4 hours reviewing Peter. And 1-2 hours on every !vote in the RfA process. I also try to spend 2-4 hours every week reviewing my coachees edits. Which makes adding new coachees a challenge.Balloonman (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly all right

No hard feelings :) -- Naerii 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I am...

[1] Interested, that is - at least enough to hear your thoughts. I will also send you a brief email with a bit of relevant off-wiki history. Thanks! Risker (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at your edits and email this evening. You can see my past noms at the top of my page. So far I've nom'd 3 people who have passed and one who appears to be heading towards the tools right now. You can also take a look at my coachees... I've developed a reputation of being one of the tougher reviewers in the RfA process. I won't guarantee that I'll nom ya, but with Sandy's support, it would be hard not to ;-) Before I nom somebody I don't know I'll generally spend 2-4 hours reviewing their edits because I want to make sure that I'm nom'ing somebody who I fully expect to pass and be a superb admin.Balloonman (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Balloonman; I wouldn't have it any other way. I have observed your nominees are solid. I'll look forward to your feedback, one way or the other. Risker (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Spent about 5 hours reviewing you.Balloonman (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping that's a good sign :-) Thanks very much for your thoughts and considered words. I know I will be working late tonight so I will hold off until tomorrow evening EDT. You're right, I'm not a typical candidate, so this could prove to be interesting. Risker (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I like non-traditional editors for admin. Too much emphasis in the past has been on admins for blocking/protecting/deleting. While those are the most common uses of the tools, and the most high profile, they aren't the only things admins do. It's also not a bad idea to have people in different segments of the community with the tools. Thus, most of my nominations.Balloonman (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the five hours... I don't want to be surprised, so I try to vet my candidates as well as possible. I also want people who see my noms to know that I've done as complete a job with my candidates (coachees) as I can. When I support somebody, I want my supports to mean something. When I oppose somebody, I want people to know that there is a reason.Balloonman (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanded Q2&Q3 at the recommendation of someone else, your thoughts? Risker (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker is now live. Thank you very much for your co-nomination. Risker (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey there Firsfron, I'm trying to get some of the people at the admin coaching page hooked up with good admin coaches, and I thought of you! I have a candidate that failed her first RfA because of a lack of policy knowledge. Her edits are great, except that she hasn't shown an adequate understanding of policy and needs to get involved in areas that will demonstrate that. She could use some guidance. I currently have 4 or 5 coachees right now, thus can't handle any more. I was wondering if you could check her out?Balloonman (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Balloonman!

Thanks for thinking of me in this situation. Unfortunately, I am short on time and long at work, so I must decline. So sorry. Hope all is well for you and for G. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds

Just a note my man, but where you intending to drop a signature under the support section of this RfA? - If you can't think of a good reason you can allways !vote "per nom" ...... :) Pedro :  Chat  07:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, you should sign your comments... but I plan on being the 100th !vote!Balloonman (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sign? Sign? Oh yeah - the tilde thing :). Okay, that explains it. Good luck with Risker BTW - looks another goodie! Pedro :  Chat  07:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think so... she's civil, has a head on her shoulder, and knows her stuff. Not the 'typical' candidate, but I think that's what we need to get away from. I think we need more admins like her.Balloonman (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is in reference to a comment I made on his talk pageOkey doke, thanks for the info. PeterSymonds | talk 16:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tehe, I know, but that's what I'd imagined my RfA to turn out like (before you kindly nominated me). I certainly didn't expect near-unanimous support (touch wood, so far!). The noms help as well of course. :) PeterSymonds | talk 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Admin Coachin

Run a mock RFA. This will kind of get the users used to the RFA process and all users participating can bring up the issues that they might have with the potential administrator and this will help them address it.

Unless you already are doing this.

If you are. Keep the faith!<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I was thinking of starting a page in userspace for this purpose. Enigma ^message 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And how would this differ from Editor Review?Balloonman (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Editor Review, but the Mock RFA will allow the potential admins answer the required questions and allow others to ask them questions normally found in an RFA. Then they can be given critique on the questions and what to change. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

=D<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's future

Balloonman...Several people have expressed an interest in my next probable nomination for adminship. Messaging people when it happens would look a lot like canvassing, so I would prefer not doing that. If you are interested in it, you could add this to your watchlist. If it is created, you will know, maybe even before I do depending on how often you check your watchlist. If you wish to gush prior to it being officially up, have fun, but only when it happens please. I am in no particular rush. Have a very nice day! :) - LA @ 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to semi-protect Kaohsiung American School

Hi, I would like to request that you semi-protect Kaohsiung American School. There have been multiple vandalism edits by IP Addresses recently (most using proxy servers). I have been tired of reverting these vandalism edits daily, which makes it difficult to improve the integrity of the article. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected for 1 week.Balloonman (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-coach

Since you have agreed to be my co-coach as per the above comment (up there a ways), please read this page to get caught up with what kinds of things I've been coached on so far. Cheers, Razorflame 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've done everything that you've said, and Useight has already agreed to allow you to be a co-coach, yet I see that you haven't replied to anything that I've said on this talk page in the last 2 days. I know that you are probably very busy, and I know that I should not be angry with you, but I am starting to get a little frustrated, because even though you said up there a ways that you would be my co-coach, you haven't shown any interest in it. Thanks, Razorflame 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The newbie RfA

link. It's basically a non-issue because you removed it from WP:RFA, but the originator isn't responding and it's just hanging open out there. Shouldn't it be closed and listed as a failed RfA? Enigma ^message 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to delete it instead. As a failed RfA, it would carry a certain stigma that I don't want to label a newbie with, thus I've asked him for permission to delete it. If he doesn't respond, then yeah, we could close it. Heck, I guess we could close it then delete it?Balloonman (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The standard way to do it is to always close when untranscluding. As you said, it could always be deleted later. I'm not optimistic about him responding. Did you see his contributions? Enigma ^message 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

Balloonman, since you defended Kurt Weber's right to oppose according, in your words, "whatever criteria he chooses to evaluate a candidate.", I would like to draw you attention to this, [2]. Dorftrottel (criticise) 04:07, May 7, 2008

A few distinct differences. Kurt's right to use his rationale have been defended twice at RfC's, once at Arbcom, and numerous times at AN/I. His !votes are not what is disruptive, but rather the person attacks (such as get a life/wife comments.) This !vote was clearly intended as a joke to be disruptive. Plus, I find it amazing that you just can't seem to let it go.Balloonman (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, your ANI complaint trying to tie this oppose to Kurt's was pretty much shot down.Balloonman (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Thanks for this. I've filled out the answers. What next? I'll be up for a little while next, so can field any discussion if necessary. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

When you are ready you need to 'transclude' the nom onto the RfA page. The directions on how to do that can be found hereBalloonman (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you figured it out on your own!Balloonman (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another excellent candidate found by balloonman...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I more or less figured it out. Thanks again for all your help! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

A request, can you please upload this image. I want to use it for the article 1999 Chamoli earthquake. I am asking you because I am still well-versed in uploading images outside Flickr. The image is present in this page. The image will be fair use. A {{Template:Non-free historic image}} will be appropriate for the particular article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Images are an area that I am not comfortable with. I would suggest going to WP:Image and asking them to help you out.Balloonman (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This page

Can you fix the formatting - the centering is really annoying...:( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No... er... I agree... I'll try to figure out what I did wrong later on... I'm going to bed now... I think it has something to do with my new coaching boxes above.Balloonman (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look...good night (and I read & noted everything on the coaching page, thanks for the comments, they've been taken on board). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you! Glad to hear I'm your first WP:100! Though jbmurray looks like the second. :) Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Jb will be three... Risker is two... back-to-back-to-back 100+ support candidates.Balloonman (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Balloonman.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your participation, and as you felt the need to switch from support to neutral, I would appreciate any particular thoughts advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Avi, I didn't have time to look through your contribs. I generally spend 1-3 hours on nom's before I !vote on them. Sometimes I will do so in less time---if I am familiar with their contribs. My general impression of you is very favorable, which is why I only gave you a cursory review before supporting. But some of the opposes were enough to have me back away from my position---more so because I didn't vet you completely rather than with anything specific.Balloonman (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit count

You're walking on thin ice buddy! heh. But seriously though, you certainly have a way with words (or should I say text). I'm not saying it was the superficial words that convinced me, but your explanation in conjunction with the evidence. I just didn't feel comfortable anymore. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks very much for your kind message on my talkpage. I am almost scared to ask what acting like an administrator means, however!!! Anyway, I would be happy for you to check out my edits etc in more detail and see what you think. Any and all feedback gratefully received, no matter how it turns out! --Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To me being an admin isn't about the buttons... it's about the attitude of helping people and being of service to the community. When I looked at your talk page, what I saw was a person who is sought out by others for assistance, has a level head, and appears to be involved in several key areas. These are all admirable traits. That, combined with a recommendation from SandyGeorgia goes a long way in my book. I won't promise a nom and I can't promise that you will pass, but I will take an in depth look at your edits. (I generally spend 2-5 hours reviewing people I don't know before noming them to make sure that there are no surprises and to make sure that I represent them fairly in their RfA.)Balloonman (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that it isn't about buttons and such like, or at least it jolly well shouldn't be. Anyway, have a happy few hours and I hope it doesn't prove too long and harduous. Like I said, whatever happens, feedback on one's editing is always useful, so thanks. --Slp1 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your advice

When something like this happens, do you drop the editor a note, or just leave it alone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

oops, never mind, i misread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If the conversation is immaterial to the !vote or about the person (usually Kurt) then *I* and a few others will move the conversation to the talk page. Some disagree with this practice, but I think it is generally accepted that if the conversation has degenerated and doesn't affect the merits of the RfA then moving it is acceptable.Balloonman (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

review

Hi, will you please review me? Thanks, to do so, click here or click here to review me on the Dune Wiki.--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.78.249 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy: Block magnet?Balloonman (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin coachee

Hi. Thank you for the information that my coachee self nommed himself. He has taken the wise decision to withdraw his nomination and gain more experience with areas of adminship before trying again. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I tell my coachees is that if they nom themselves or accept a nom before I say that they are ready, that I WILL oppose. I do open the door for them to terminate the coaching relationship, but if I am actively coaching them, then I expect them to seek out my guidance before running.Balloonman (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Slp1

I saw this. I suspect that the final sentence of the second paragraph (particularly) needs some copy-editing. Want me to give it a tweak? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it...going to bed... Balloonman (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I am super busy at present so won't have time to think properly etc for a few days. But will get to it when I have a good block of time: sometime near the weekend probably.--Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... there is no rush.Balloonman (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I could trouble you for some advice. For some reason, I have only just seen your message about the speedy category on my talkpage. I must say that I am a bit concerned about these mistakes: I realize that I have tended to tag silly articles as Nonsense and not as Vandalism partly because I was relying on an older version of the WP:CSD which just referenced the seemingly (to me!) quite strict WP:VANDAL, and did not include the "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation" qualifier that is now there. But I do see my mistake. I have checked my last 100 speedy nominations (which took me back to the beginning of December!) and found that 96 were deleted, one was turned into a redirect and 3 were copyright vios that either I or others quickly rewrote. So, I feel that I have a good handle on what is speediable, even if I have sometimes erred with the exact tag. But I am worried that these errors would come back to haunt me in an RFA: I realize that you have kindly think that it isn't a serious problem and fixable too, but I would be very willing to wait a while before running if you think it advisable. Let me know what you think! --Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slp, I won't lie. It could hurt because there are some people (like myself) who don't generally care for Speedy Deleter's. If your primary role on Wikipedia was solely anti-vandalism activities, then yes, this would doom it. But you are active elsewhere. I think your record is strong enough, that it should not matter. You will also have a nom from me (and I'm one of the tougher RfA reviewers) and a co-nom from Sandy (and Sandy is one of the most respected users on Wikipedia.) I think if you address it directly, point out your tract record, and if you can show the older version that you used, you should be ok. Your tagging of articles was much better than the average CSD'er. When I do reviews of CSD, I usually see more inappropriate tagging... and I generally don't see the Admin 'fixing' wrong tags. Let me look at what I wrote in the RfA (I am always of the opinion that you don't hide weaknesses in your RfA, you confront them head-on.) Perhaps other RfA reviewers could chime in here.Balloonman (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate the honesty, and quite agree on the advisability to face any problems head-on, so thanks for both as well as the advice! Thanks too for the edits to the nom: I was a bit worried about the 'virtually', and was going to ask you about it in the morning, but am glad too see I don't have too! I will work on the answers to the questions today, and then ask you what you think again, if that is okay. Slp1 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.Balloonman (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done it! It took a ridiculously long length of time! What do you think? --Slp1 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good... go ahead and transclude when you are ready... please make sure to watch it for 2-4 hours after transcluding to answer any questions that pop up.Balloonman (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm expecting some little girls for tea and sewing lessons. Will wait till they leave and I've picked up the pins and needles! --Slp1 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Walk. Away. From. The. Pins. And. Needles.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

and into an RfA... ??? Balloonman (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

I should say that, though I would have said that my gut instinct was against the very notion of "admin coaching," I had a peruse through some of what you've been doing, especially with DHMO, and have been very impressed. It looks serious and professional, and much more than mere cosmetics. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for a lot of coaches/coachees it is cosmetic. But I am a teacher at heart... thus I use coaching to teach potential admins how to be better admins/wikipedians. I don't want people to make "token" appearances in places just to say "I've been there and done that." When coaches do that they create problems. I want them to make "foot prints" in areas where they have interest---that shows a adminly spirit. I also treat coaching as an extended Editor Review. With the exception of Tan, whom I have grown to trust and am convinced will pass his next RfA, I try to check my coachees edits 3-4 times a month---spending 2-4 hours each time (just as I do with potential admin noms.) I also treat coaching as a semi-long term process---2-4 months in length. I don't want the coachee who is trying to polish his resume, I want somebody who needs help. Steven is a perfect example. When I started working with him 3 months ago, he would have have zero chance of passing an RfA. Today, I think he has an excellent chance. He won't be my strongest candidate, but he will be the one that I am the proudest of because of the transformation that has occurred with him. And I'll be honest with you, I have higher expectations for somebody who has been through coaching than I do for somebody who hasn't---and I hold the coach more to blame if the candidate fails. The coach should RESEARCH the candidate and know of any potential failings and not let their candidate run until there is a strong chance they will pass! But many coaches don't do that.Balloonman (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

I've been debating with myself whether or not to seek an admin coach, based on the various discussions about its utility, but looking at what you've done convinced me that the net positive would outweigh the negative. I understand if you're full right now and am willing to wait in line. I'm not overanxious - but I feel that as an administrator, I would be able to better achieve my main goal of being on Wikipedia, and that is to advance knowledge and help others to do the same. Thanks for your time and consideration. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look, but it may take a few days... I've pretty much extended myself to the limit.Balloonman (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Again, if you just want to put me in a queue, that's fine with me. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A polite request

Can I ask you of a favour? Can you please leave a space between the end of your post and signature? It's a bit annoying seeing something like "Hello.Balloonman (talk)" ; "Hello. Balloonman (talk)" is clearer and visually pleasing. Hope this isn't too much to ask, Maxim_(talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to remember... no promises. Balloonman (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly thought that was a deliberate thing - a signature signature, as it were. Tan | 39 06:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Maxim_(talk) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The latest essay

Hey, I went over it and corrected a few things. At one point you seem to have stopped in the middle of the sentence. Check it and you'll see what I mean. Enigma ^message 06:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Very possible... it was kind of redacted from several discussions that I've been involved with on admin coaching. What did you think of it overall?Balloonman (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Solid essay. Espouses a few of your points that I'm familiar with from WT:RFA. Enigma ^message 06:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maxim's not going to be happy with your latest edit (for two reasons). :D Enigma ^message 06:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well ;-) Balloonman (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just realised, your typing reminded me a lot of how my dad types. Not telling an old-man joke or anything. ;)dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen here junior... Balloonman (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

by the way, not sure what you meant. the message on my talk Enigma ^message 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Did my follow up message clarify anything?Balloonman (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

striking out of Al tallys votes

The users votes are obvious parodies with absolutely no good faith. Check his contribs, he has stated that "trolls are good, let kurt continue his disruption..." and "forget it, let the disruptive trolling continue!". The only reason he is voting oppose on all those RFA candidacies with ludicrous reasons is that he is trying to make a WP:POINT about User:Kmweber. Icewedge (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

add a link to the discussion [3] and then I think what you are doing would be acceptable. In this situation, you need to show the POINT rather than just allege it.Balloonman (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for not linking. I guess I will go re-do the strikeouts. Icewedge (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done.Balloonman (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw, thanks. Icewedge (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to comment that while his ~votes are obviously all about WP:POINT, so are weber's. So are Gurch's. Enigma ^message 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with Kurt, I do support his !votes. Self-noms are a definite sign of weakness... but I don't believe they are auto opposes.Balloonman (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But making them auto-opposes is a clear violation of WP:POINT. We've been over and over this with Kurt, but his comments in general are POINTy. He doesn't like self-noms, so auto-opposes, when self-noms are clearly allowed. I don't believe that what Majorly did was any worse than what Kurt does on a daily basis. The votes should not have been struck. Enigma ^message 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a major difference, and this is where majorly's !votes are pointy/trolling. Kurt believes his !votes are justified. He knows that people disagree with him, but he believes his position is justified. While people disagree with his reasoning, they I have yet to hear somebody argue otherwise. Majorly/Al Tally doesn't believe his !vote and is doing so strictly to make a point. Thus, it becomes disruptive. Majorly/Al Tally is voting to make a point against Kurt, while Kurt's !votes are one of principle (just not respected by the broader community.)Balloonman (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but I still think the following: Obviously this is going over ground that has been trodden upon many a time, but my argument is that while some self-noms may indicate power-hunger or other undesirable characteristics, many don't. A refusal to actually investigate and look for diffs that indicate power hunger is laziness and a clear violation of WP:POINT. Any editor could get someone else to nom them, I assure you. Obviously you wouldn't nom anyone who asked for a nom, but I can guarantee that any editor who has been around at least a few weeks could find someone else to nominate them for adminship. Enigma ^message 01:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely aggravated every time I see KMW oppose a viable candidate. Que sera. I agree with Balloonman though, E-man, that what Al tally/Majorly is doing is completely different than what KMW does on a regular basis. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Kurt on a regular basis either, but I do support his right to have his criteria. (Just as I support others who have criteria that I may disagree with.) But Majorly is doing this to be disruptive... his intention is to be disruptive. Kurt's actions may lead to disruption, but that is not his intention. Kurt believes what he is doing is justified, Majorly is doing what he is doing because he is trying to make a point.Balloonman (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, as for not investigating further, when I see an editor with 2 months experience and less than 1K edits, I've seen enough to !vote oppose. Kurt's rationale may be different, but in principle it is the same. He has the right to use a criteria I disagree with.Balloonman (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2c.: when have Kurt's !votes actually made any difference at an RFA? When would they be likely to? Really, the disruption that I see comes mostly from the protests in response. Honestly. So many people have made such a song and dance about him, and he's done very little (stubbornly little perhaps) to provoke them.

(From what it's worth, from the little I've seen of Kurt, he's no vandal: he has some rather basic principles, which are too simple and too inflexible for most, and he very doggedly sticks to them. That's OK. As Balloonman points out, most of us have some kinds of principles and/or rules of thumb; we don't really evaluate everything on a case by case basis, however much we try.)

Along similar lines, I would actually have left Al tally's !votes as they were. They weren't doing any harm.

And if, suddenly, there really were a rash of such !votes, so much so that they started to swamp other voices (and not just because of the fuss made about them), then it would in the first instance be down to the Bureaucrats to make their feelings known. But I find such a situation unlikely. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have left his !votes if it wasn't clear from his other edits that they were strictly to make a point and be disruptive. (Which is why I originally reverted Ice's striking of his !vote.) But once it became apparent that the !voting was to make a point, he lost all credibility.Balloonman (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, the Kurt thing is a dead issue. I just didn't like that Majorly's stuff was stricken. Enigma ^message 02:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moni3

Being that you have nominated a bunch of users out of the SandyGeorgia reccommend group, perhaps you may want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moni3. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to copy edit it before Moni3 gets to it ;-) SandyGeorgia's page has become a great resource for more than the FAC team lately, and it's a fine sight to see. Risker (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely be supporting... but I struck out your !vote. !voting, even by the nom, before the nom goes live has been highly criticized lately and a source of opposes.Balloonman (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

People oppose RfA's because the nominator voted before it went live? That's just silly. Aleta ^Sing 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Never seen that, but if any besides the nominator(s) support before it goes live, it's been a reason to oppose. You know Can't Sleep, Clown will eat me? That was the source of several opposes on one of his RfAs. They called it presenting the community with a fait accompli. Enigma ^message 04:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Did they think he was canvassing for votes? Aleta ^Sing 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but they felt it was disrespectful to the community to "pre-stack" an RfA. The exact words used (I actually remember it from my reading a few months ago) were "...presenting the community with a fait accompli", I guess implying that a request for adminship with six supports or whatever pre-transclusion influences its progression. Enigma ^message 04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see that, but it seems to me that the people making the mistake are those voting early, not the nominee - and now I won't continue this on Balloonman's talk page anymore. Aleta ^Sing 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue came up again here with a misperception of "vote-stacking". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Close the RfA, please

I have been informed by the sages that the nomination is malformed and that strikes against me. It has been recommended that I decline and if the opportunity arises again to be nominated, face that when it comes. Which I shall. I appreciate your attention. --Moni3 (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The nominator makes a mistake, and so it counts against the nominee? Again, that is silly. Aleta ^Sing 04:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you again for taking a leap of faith and nominating me for adminship. Your knowledge of the RfA process and culture was of great benefit to me during this very unusual week; now that I have survived it, I will certainly be rethinking any notions I ever had about periodic reconfirmations.  :- ) I hope you find that I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, sorry I haven't been on in a while. Things in real life are getting really busy, and I have no time for Wikipedia right now. I'll probably be back on in June. After that, I'll be voraciously editing Wikipedia... promise. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, in that case I'm going to put your coaching on hold. Let me know when you return.Balloonman (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

barnstar of nomination thanks

Barnstar of Nomination Thanks

Balloonman: Thank you so much for researching, encouraging, and nominating my RfA. None of this would have happened, let alone so surprisingly smoothly, without you and your experience. Thank you for your well-worded and wise (and far too generous) nomination, for keeping the tally ticking, and for generally watching over things. And thank you above all for putting your trust in me. I do hope to deserve it. Again, thanks so much. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

latest nom...

You're waiting for 100 aren't you? (to add your "nom support", that is.) Another great find, B-man. Nice work. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In a way, but I've decided that "beat the nom" support is kind of silly... so I've decided that a signature of my candidates will be that I will wait until 100 or the last day before supporting!Balloonman (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Looking forward to this particular candidate meeting 200 then. Seems like a superb candidate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have another that, IF I decide to nom her has the same potential...Balloonman (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! You definitely have a strong reputation for you nominations. That said, I'm looking forward to Tan's. He deserves the tools, will use them wisely, (and I know now that you agree). What's the timeline for Tan? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up to Tan... It's been two months, which is a little on the short side between noms, which might garner some default opposes, but I think he'd pass if he ran now. If he waits two weeks, he'll get rid of most of the 'default' opposes for running too soon.Balloonman (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Shall we say June 1? Tan has left it explicitly up to you and me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Err on the side of conservativeness, guys. There's no urgency in this :-) Tan | 39 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case January 1, 2010?Balloonman (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Egads. I cannot imagine how many mistakes he'll make before then. Best to do it now....:-)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One---waiting too longBalloonman (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's funny. I was reflecting on this the other day - "I haven't goofed up in awhile; maybe it's time...." :-) Tan | 39 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Left a message for Tan along these lines. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna let Balloonman decide on this. June 1st is fine with me, seems to be fine with Tan. If it happens sooner, fine with me (it shoulda happened back in March, IMO :-). So, that said, Tan and Keeper both put it in your court, B-man. You pick the date. Add your nom, after which, I'll add my co-nom. Then, we wait seven days to see a final tally of 150-2-0, or something along those lines. Going offline in a minute...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should push this off a bit, guys. I just don't have the time to devote to answering the questions, etc - work has been very busy. And if I don't have wiki time, I probably don't need the tools yet, huh? ;-) Probably mid to late June. I'll keep you posted. Tan | 39 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ok

Ill Change my signature but just a heads up I wouldn't put a campaign add like thing in your comments. Trees Rock^{Plant A TreeMyGoal} 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Admin

Balloonman, thanks very much for the admin proposal and for the kind words that went with it. I can see that you put real effort and thought into your admin suggestions. But I have to decline the idea. First, I already spend too much time on WP, so I don't want to take on responsibilities that would mean more! My family thinks I'm nuts as it is ;-) Second, researching and writing and (hopefully) informing readers is the part of WP work that draws me in; conflicts and battles with other editors and over WP policy interpretation is the part that pushes me away. Yes, I know I ask for some of these conflicts by working on such high-profile articles. But if I were an admin, I'd be spending even more time dealing with the fools, troublemakers, and lunatics, and less time doing what I like. And, I'd have to be careful not to throw my weight around inappropriately on the articles I work on. So all in all, it's not the right fit for me. But thanks again, and good luck with your recruiting efforts. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I had to ask as I do think you'd be a great admin and I can definitely see the use of having an admin who is interested in politics. Having somebody who pays attention to the subject that could interject into page protections and blocks would be great. But I understand the desire to focus on what you want to do.Balloonman (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you ever change your mind, let me know...Balloonman (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User name

Ive bolded the Lime part of my name, its a little better, i might persuade myself to get a dark green though at some point. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still hard to read... I would go with the darker green color.Balloonman (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a different computer right now, and it is easier to read on this computer... so it might be partially affected by the monitor, but you want something that is legible to all.Balloonman (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Balloonman, ive come to inform you out of respect that i took myself off the list for admin coaching and wont be looking for one. Ive come to realise that im rather happy doing what i already do. I first wanted it as some sort of glory sticker but ive quickly realised that its actually no biggy, some editers have more respect and trust than admins. Im not going to train for it, the community can decide for itself if and when im ready. Until then i intend to enjoy byself and carry on buiding articles. Thankyou for all your feedback. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, admin coaching isn't for everyone... and it does have some draw backs. I wish you the best, and look forward to your run. If you ever want me to 'review' you again and offer input, just ask.Balloonman (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hey, I'm writing to let you know that I took your initial advice and will now be keeping user talk page conversations together. I have responded to you very thoughtful RfA analysis on my talk page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indenting

Oops, Sorry about that; I didn't notice! I noticed the duplicate vote on the RfA analyser. I'll ensure the "#" is kept next time. Apologies and thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

no problem, its all a learning process the first time.Balloonman (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on RfA

Re the comment of mine that I struck under your vote - I'm happy for it to be deleted if you wish to do so. Orderinchaos 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there! I understand how busy you must be, but are you still willing to possibily be my co-coach with Useight? Cheers, Razorflame Report false positives 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point I don't really have time... there are 3 other people who have approached me as well as a person I just picked up via SandyGeorgia. Sorry.Balloonman (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem! I just thought that I would check back with you to see if you were available now. Cheers, Razorflame 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Is that {{Talkback|Balloonman|RE: }} really meant to be at the top of this talk page? :P ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can NEVER remember that command, so I put it there so I can add it to people's talk page ;-) As for supporting you, your next time around... good luck and keep trucking, you had nothing that would preclude me from supporting down the road!Balloonman (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin coaching

Thank you! It's always great to get a good coachee like Scetoaux, too. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to drop you a note based on you response to my oppose opinion on Scetoaux Rfa. Sorry if it seems that I was picking on you directly, that was not my intention. I was taking umbrage with the process. I do understand that the project does need “Specialized” – “Criteria” and, in general, people to handle the mop. However, it seems that it has become a contest of “who can nominate” the most individuals or who has the “most successful” candidates that get the extra buttons. In the process, individuals like Scetoaux are caught up in the process. Here we have a candidate, if they keep up their present contribution quantity and quality, which would be a shoo-in in about three to six months. However, after only 30 days we are nominating them to make decisions on whether to Keep or Delete – Block or not to Block – Use snow or let the process to continue. Sorry, I believe it is unfair to both the process and the individual. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the baby crying was my 5 month old baby who was crying for a meal... otherwise I would have commented more... it is an interesting idea that needs to be addressed, but I was unable to respond at the time... I need to go put the 4 year old to bed so it'll be a few hours before I can join in the discussion.Balloonman (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL - Been there done that, just talk to Pedro! Just remeber this is not the real world, we are only volunteers, when it effects your pay check, than take it serious. :-) ShoesssS ^Talk 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, can you please tell if the image File:NPD.jpg can be used in userboxes or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as the image isn't copyrighted, (and according to the iamge page it isn't), I couldn't see why not---assuming that it was shrunk down to a small enough size to fit in a user box... but at that size it might not be worth it.Balloonman (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

EMail

Sent you one. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shame!

Transposing the letters like that! I fixed it. ;) Enigma ^message 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RTA = Reason to Avoid?Balloonman (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Right to Access. Out of my way! Enigma ^message 16:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Huggle

Balloonman, for goodness SAKE I am NOT saying that a high edit count or a low edit count should determine the outcome of an RfA. This seems like the umpteenth time I have said this, and I'm now getting tired of people seemingly unable to get their head round what I think is a simple statement. I've already had to dumb it down once, and I can't make it any simpler than it is now.

Read it again. Sifting through a vast amount of automatic edits to search for sporadic manual ones is a hindrance. What in that essay of mine suggests I base my RfA votes on an edit count size? Lradrama 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your recent contrib

here. You did get the note from Tan saying he wanted to wait another month or so, right? Just want to be sure. Also, and this really isn't all that important to me, but how would you feel about being Nom#1, and my adding a co-nom under yours?

Nevermind - I just saw your post on /AC, we're crossing wires here... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know he wants to wait, but I want to get him off my list of current coachees as he's done... we're simply in a holding pattern until his life settles down and he's ready to run. Again, like I said on his AC page, add your comment ABOVE mine---you're the primary, I'm supporting.Balloonman (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony really to me is that he never needed coaching in the first place, just time. One of the most clueful editors I've ever had the pleasure of "meeting". I'll add my Primary nom in a week or two. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw your editor review

...[here.] Very thoughtful stuff, should be useful to Razor. I'm not sure if you are aware, and I haven't seen it really brought up too much, but Razor had ran for an admin 6 times over on simple english wikipedia. After his most recent failed one, on May 17th, he stated he won't ever try again there. Now he is focusing on becoming an admin on en.wikipedia. Clearly Razor has good intentions, but all this worries me. I guess I'm approaching you here, because I'm really not sure how to address this issue, didn't know what to say to Razor about it. It's likely he'll read this here I guess. What are your thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Keeper alluded to it quite well, he does seem overly eager to become an admin. This eagerness, if not tamed, can hurt him in an RfA.Balloonman (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Keeper alluded to it quite well myself. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do hope to prove to you that I can tame my eagerness to be an administrator in time. Also, thanks for the review and the follow-up! Cheers, Razorflame 01:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think waiting should help with that...Balloonman (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already decided to wait until September. Useight originally thought that I would be ready 500 edits into June, but I decided to wait until September. It's a start. I am also trying to not post so much on others' user talk pages about adminship. Cheers, Razorflame 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Razorflame

Thanks for your review on Razorflame's admin coaching page, it's always good to get a fresh set of eyes to look things over and present things from a different angle. Even though you did mispell my name (but that happens fairly often). :/ Useight (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....

for taking the time, having the confidence, writing such a great nom and keeping an eye on things! I really appreciate it. You may have had no doubt, but I certainly did, and so it was very amazing to me how that it turned out so well. Even if I broke your run of over 100s. Sorry about that! --Slp1 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't expect to have 3 consecutive candidates of over 100+ supports. Those are pretty rare beasts, and to have three in a row was a shocker. But again, I didn't have any doubts about your passing. You are a phenomenal candidate. I don't nominate people unless I am fully convinced that they will will be a great admin and will pass. If I'm not convinced they would pass, I'll tell them why (ala Moni3 and Happyme22.) If they still want to run, and I think they will make a solid admin, I'm willing to do the nom, but I warn them as to why they might not pass. Anyways, don't block Sandy today ok?Balloonman (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do my very best to avoid it. Frankly the whole thing makes me a pretty darn nervous so I am heading off to the admin school soon! And if you are looking for possible admin candidates, I think User:J Readings would be worth taking a look at. A very solid, civil editor with lots of good sense and a good sense of policies too! Thanks again! --Slp1 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		Roses from Dorothy
		Dorothy the Dinosaur (and me) have given you this beautiful rose in appreciation for your assistance in getting The Wiggles to FA-status. Yoo hoo! and Good on ya, mate! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know...

I know you watch talk pages and such but you asked me to let you know - so - just letting you know that User:Xenocidic/admin coaching is ready for your perusal. =) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed... I probably won't add anything til this evening... just online for a short period right now.Balloonman (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - no rush. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The nom

That was a surprise! Thank you for your well-prepared nomination. xenocidic (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I kept reading your contributions thinking, "He's not at six months... he's not at six months... but he's ready... eventually, I decided that it was a bigger travesty to make you wait a few weeks than to have you run a few weeks early." Don't forget to transclude your nom when you are ready...Balloonman (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Will do so in the future, the future is not going to be far away either, I just put up another one. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Like I said on your talk page, putting the notices on the wikiproject pages is expected, but it is also expected that you put a note saying that you've done so.Balloonman (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:100

The reason it said 4th before was because Werdna has had five RfAs. Enigma ^message 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, see comment on the WP:100 talkpage, I responded there.Balloonman (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

DHMO's next RFA

Since you're nomming, I'd like to inform you that I think I'll be placing a co-nom. I was just wondering: when's it happening? I really think he's ready to hold the adminhammer. He's already a Commons 'crat, for pity's sake - unopposed, not to mention his RFBAG, also unopposed. :P. What do you think? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Links; RfBAG, RfB. I need to stop watching so many pages. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond this evening on the coaching page.Balloonman (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible admin coaching?

Hello there Balloonman

I am writing to ask you if you would be interested in Admin Coaching me, as it is something I am ambitious and serious about doing but lack relevant experiance. I have been pointed in your direction and I believe you could really help me, as your experianced I really would be honoured if you could coach me. Many thanks. Yours, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at you this evening... right now I have 3 active coachees and 2 not-so-active ones (Eg waiting for their RfA to begin.)Balloonman (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking the time to consider at least. When you say take a look you mean at my contribs? Thanks Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the person who pointed me in your direction, suggested that it might be a good idea for you to take a look at what they suggested on my talk page as well. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be a few days. I just took two coachees and need to give them their due. Especially the one that I just started. I will probably be spending another 2-4 hours reviewing his edits tonight or tomorrow. Then I need to spend some time with Happyme22 and H20. Which probably means that I won't get to you until at least thursday. I put a lot of effort into my coaching, thus it is not something I engage in lightly.Balloonman (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I understand that. But if you dont want to make me aware, I dont want to be a dead weight. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this, it was me who pointed PMJ in your direction; if you do take him on, can you have a read of this conversation, and if you "pass him on" to one of the others can you also advise them, as I've given him a fair bit of advice and it's best you know what's been said so you can avoid repetition and/or disagree with me. (The version on my talkpage is probably easier to read, as an IP vandal has gutted PMJ's talkpage since then and messed up the formatting.) If you're not able, I've also suggested Lara (Pedro seems to have gone AWOL) — she's a (ahem) "interesting" character but I think she'd do quite a good job; don't know what your opinion is... — iridescent 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. I'll bear in mind your criticisms. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't consider them criticisms, consider them growing points. It really isn't meant to be critical. Also, do pay attention to the last point about continuing discussions where they are last posted... Eg, since you responded here, I'm now going to respond here as compared to your page.Balloonman (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What I've decided to do is reply on others talk pages as well as on my owns, what do you think? Good idea? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because you will end up with discordant responses, and people who look at your posts will never know that there are parrallel posts occuring.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But if I reply solely to my talk page, IPs etc and even some users wont realised I've replied through ill use of the Watchlist, could I do anything to avoid that? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are on an IP there is no guarantee that they will be on the same IP next time they log on---how will they see the response then? Put a note, like the one I have at the top of my page on your page, if the other party doesn't watch list you or pay attention, then it is their fault.... if you are really concerned, you could add the talkback template that I have at the top of this page. That alerts people that you've responded on your page and will continue to do so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your essay

As an admin coachee I really enjoyed your essay about administrative coaching. I totally agree with your opinion. It is a shame some users see the coaching as negative. Sorry for the rather random post but you get what I mean = ). --Cameron (T|C) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks.Balloonman (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Balloonman - as you may already know, my RfA closed successfully today. I read your oppose with interest, and am sorry that there was a minor clash between the opposers and one or two of my supporters. I genuinely understand your concern, and, as with some of the other opposers, I have taken your comments on board with relation to my apparent inexperience.

I plan to work in two very limited areas for the moment, as described in question 1 of my RfA - a personal 'project' involving Special:UnwatchedPages and some CSD clearance. I will continue editing normally as well, with User:FritzpollBot taking up a lot fo time over the next few months.

I will ensure, should I need to act outside of these areas, that I have read the relevant policies/guidance, and consult other admins if need be. Although I did not agree with your assessment of my experience, I have taken it to heart and this will be reflected in my behaviour as I begin to wield the tools. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Fritz, I have no doubt that you will be a fine Admin... the only concerns that I had were related to lack of experience. Of all the things to be oppose, that is the easiest one to overcome. Good luck.Balloonman (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Balloonman - I'll do my best. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DHMO's RFA

After reading through the incredibly long nom and co-nom's at DHMO's RFA, I refreshed the page to see if anyone had already voiced their opinion (six people suddenly had), then I scrolled up to re-read a portion of it again and I couldn't find the part I wanted. I scrolled up and down wondering where it went and then had to check the history. You took it out. You get the award for making me puzzle for a minute. Useight (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that he was going live so quickly! When I saw the length of Daniel's nom and how well written it was, I decided that I needed to shorten my nom. It was way too long as it was.Balloonman (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone's asked about this here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

respondedBalloonman (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

3 or 4 noms at once!

Wow, by the end of this week I should have 3 or 4 noms going at once!!! It really depends on if Tan decides to run or wait!Balloonman (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Coaching page

If you get a minute or two, can you have a quick look at my trimmed down answers on my talk page? Ideally I want to get the answers in a condition where I can just cut and paste them into the RFA page tomorrow lunchtime, and hopefully I can do that before going home tonight. Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotta go... I'll have a look at your comments in the morning and make any changes you recommend. All being well, I should be be transcluding my RFA at about 12ish (BST) tomorrow. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the duplicate vote at DHMO

Bstone has since deleted it himself, is that ok? xenocidic (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

IF it was his !vote then it is ok.Balloonman (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiggle...and learn... (let's have some fun)

My son loves this show. In Canada it is aired as "Wiggle and Learn" (see [4], Fridays at 8 PM), as such I created a redirect. It uses a theme song of the same name (wiggle and learn). I'm just not sure if this different name deserves a mention in the article. xenocidic (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

no there have been several different names the show has gone by, we don't need to mention them all.Balloonman (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

kk. redirect should be enough to get Canadian readers where they need to be. xenocidic (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, I'm Spartacus!. You have new messages at Prom3th3an's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sig

Nice new sig :-) Tan | 39 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Poppaballoon used to be my 'stage name' when I was actively entertaining. I've thought about changing my wiki name to it, but decided to put it in my sig.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sig

I like the new sig style, very stylish. MBisanz ^talk 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Danke---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DHMO RfA

I don't know too much about you, or anything about your background with DHMO. All I can say is that I think it shows extraordinarily bad judgment on your part to nom someone because you think the nom will fail, and then oppose when it becomes clear you were wrong. If you believed your personal integrity was at stake at any point, it would have been at the point before you offered a nomination that you did not believe in. I have seen your comments and contributions in the past, and I've always thought you were thoughtful and constructive. Opposing DHMO from the start, without offering a nom, would have been something I and others could respect. Your actual behavior is disappointing to see, to say the least. Avruch ^T 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed 100%. But the longer this went on, the worst I felt. I do feel like I've lost a lot of integrity, but decided it was better to state so now, than to never say so or to say so after the RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have an understanding of how you feel, Balloonman. I'd suggested the same timeframe to DHMO myself in one-on-one communication, although I thought he could well be ready now; mostly though, I didn't think it would pass because of the previous RfAs and the way that those are usually considered a sign by other !voters. There is something very wrong about this particular RfA, and I have tried to put my finger on it. To put it bluntly, there are too many votes. I can think of very few editors on this site whose RfA warrants the attention of over 300 people and, with due respect to the candidate, Giggy isn't one of them. A lot of the !votes are reactionary to matters external to DHMO's actual abilities. I am very concerned that DHMO is going to come away with far too much pride and a sense of strong community support that isn't actually there. I haven't decided whether or not to withdraw my support; when I added my name to that list, I meant it, but we seem to be dealing with an out of control situation here that colours everything. I give you credit for owning up to the situation. Risker (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to you and your right to change your opinion... Whether and how many others have supported DHMO should not, in any way, effect your judgment of DHMO himself. Repeat RfAs of prominent people, especially those that are controversial and raised at noticeboards, in canvassing emails, at ArbCom, etc. are bound to get far more attention than your run of the mill RfA. I would submit that unless DHMO or the opposing comments have actually altered your opinion of his trustworthiness as an admin you should let your support remain. Of course you're able to do whatever you think is best, but I think DHMO is aware of the controversial and strange nature of his RfA and he should not be punished for what others choose to do in a forum that is not in his control. Honestly the fact that it has become so contentious and yet none of the difficulty involves DHMO himself speaks well of his self-restraint. Avruch ^T 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have some very good points, Avruch. As I have indicated above, my greatest concern is that DHMO may well come away from this with a false sense of support. I was pretty shocked at the degree of support my RfA garnered, and if anything it has made me overly cautious in the use of tools. DHMO has been using tools on other projects, though; it's different for him. Given the turn of events, I would feel reassured if DHMO was to give some sign that he understands what a strange situation this is, and that he too will remain cautious, seek out advice and support from more experienced admins on-wiki, and take seriously the concerns that have been expressed in the RfA. Risker (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Risker's comments above. Orderinchaos 05:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the plan, and thanks for your thoughts. I have taken them on board (as well as many other comments here and elsewhere). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I have a lot of respect for your thoughtfulness, which is a reason I supported your RFA. I would beg you to please not make assumptions about my or other support votes based on numbers. I think, at the very least, some of his support is due to his willingness to be introspective of both himself and of the project itself. I would also say that his positive interaction with others is another factor. I don't think that means he's making Wikipedia MySpace, just that he can get along and work collaboratively with most other people. He may not have the optimal level of maturity, but I still find him to be thoughtful and articulate in most circumstances. Wikipedia needs thoughtful and sometimes downright harsh critiques by insiders to force the kind of positive change that is necessary. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed

I am extremely saddened by your recent actions, Balloonman. Your behaviour constitutes one of the most flagrant abuses of the RfA system I have seen. To nominate a candidate not because you genuinely believe they would make a good administrator but in the hope that you will ingratiate yourself to them whilst secretly hoping they will fail is extremely manipulative. The Request for Adminship process is not some social or political game, people rely on those nominating people to genuinely be confirming that they believe the candidate to be fit for the position. The process is imperfect and it seems many editors are reluctant to put themselves forwards these days - I shudder to think of the potential chilling effect of a nomination being withdrawn in this manner. In extreme circumstances, I could understand someone striking their nomination where new information came to light during the RfA. But to announce that you were never comfortable with them passing in the first place is an astonishing statement. It is unfair both to the candidate and the community to mislead them in the manner you have.

The breach of trust here has truly astonished me. An editor would be ill-advised to accept a nomination from you in the future, even if such a nomination would still count for anything in the eyes of the community. WjBscribe 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Avruch ^T 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second WjBscribe's remark. This manipulation, this two-facedness, is unlike anything I have seen on here before. You coached him for months, and now you have opposed his candidacy now that you see you were resoundingly wrong about him failing. Shocking. This shows bad judgment, rashness, lack of trustworthiness, and, as far as I am concerned, highly amoral behaviour, all three of which are traits I specifically am saddened to find in an administrator. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an incredibly hurtful, vicious, and stupid thing to do. You've frankly turned the joke of an RfA into a shambles with your latest edits there. I truly hope you retract them and stay away from RfA for a long time. Al Tally ^talk 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's trust? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had doubts about DHMO prior to the RfA, you should not have added a co-nomination statement. Adding a statement, and then striking it and opposing halfway through is unfair to DHMO, and overall, saddening and disappointing. Acalamari 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything that WJBscribe, and those above me, have just stated. You thought the RFA would fail and by that you thought you would somehow show him not to run for adminship, or were you trying to humiliate him in the process? For you as an admin to trick a candidate for adminship and the community, into believing that you trusted a person to be an admin, makes me speechless. You have now lost all of your credibility with me that you have the judgment to be an admin on this project. --Chetblong (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To start a comment with "Do I believe that H20 should be an admin, yes" and end it with "...unfortunately, this is going to pass" is extremely juxtapositional and shows unhealthy ambivalence, to say the least; to attempt to gain a favor with a user undergoing an RfA in the case that it would pass while simultaneously thinking the RfA won't is extremely Machiavellian. You deserve better, we deserve better, and DHMO deserves better. However, making mistakes is the first step toward self-improvement, and I expect you to learn from this folly so you won't let it happen again. Best, —Animum (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your obsession of RFA and admin coaching seems to have overwhelmed you. You'd better avoid !voting at all in this RFA, as your !vote doesn't seem to mean anything. Metaphorically, abstention is the way to salvation. Cenarium (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, don't continue to play games now. Don't pretend that this dramaqueen-esque retraction of yours is an attempt to regain your integrity. It just damages it even more. Might I suggest striking your oppose, staying away from this RfA from now on, and indeed staying away from all RfA's and admin coaching from now on? Find a process you actually have respect for, and contribute there instead. --barneca (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the challenge, I do have respect for the process... I just don't have respect for my actions---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Folks, please try to stay away from personal attack-type messages. I'm not singling anyone out, but some of this seems pretty vicious. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks here, only observations of one of the dumbest and worst things I have ever seen happen on Wikipedia. --Chetblong (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I think there are a lot of things dumber and worse than this. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I said one of not the, but this almost does top the list for an admins actions. --Chetblong (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said a lot of ;) . On a related note, I think we should all listen to SynergeticMaggot below; let Balloonman continue with his admin life, and forget the issue and teh drama. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. To "nominate a candidate not because you genuinely believe they would make a good administrator but in the hope that you will ingratiate yourself to them whilst secretly hoping they will fail" is the lowest act of disloyalty and maliciousness I have come across on Wikipedia. I am truly astounded. Daniel (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Echoing what so many above have said. Until today I have long since considered you on the short list of admins that have a clue...big mistake on my part. Your actions are deceitful, underhanded and not just unbecoming of an administrator, but unbecoming of a human being. You have taken a process that is already way too saturated with stupidity and drama and rocketed it to new levels that I never believed could exist. I seriously hope you understand the gravity of your actions and the permanent effect they have had on your integrity. Trusilver 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One minor point though... Despite the above facts, it does take one hell of a lot of guts to stand up and say something you know you are going to get your ass kicked for. And for that much alone you have restored some of my respect. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and go back to work. Trusilver 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem stems, once again, from admin coaching. This shows how pernicious the relation coach(es)/student may be. This kind of things happen on numerous occasions in "real life", and, no surprise, on Wikipedia too. While this incident is tragic and disturbing, we shouldn't forget Balloonman's long good faith involvement on Wikipedia, nor we should doubt his judgment on the long run. Having admitted his fault is honorable and getting along with this was not an easy task. The RFA process is drama-gathering and I noticed how much Balloonman was invested in, too much I should say. I think that he really needs to stay away from RFA for a while. Wikipedia is vast. Cenarium (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Hi, Balloonman. I must say I'm a little confused by this situation, but I was also confused with a statement you made in the discussion section of the RFA early on. You and I met about a year ago in the GA project, if you recall. I was so impressed with you that I added your RFA page to my watchlist so I'd know when it had been created, and I happened to be online at the time of transclusion and grabbed that #1 support spot. I left the GA project a month or so after that, so I was a little o.O when you wrote ... LaraLove, a person who all but lives in GA ... Were you really unaware that I left the GA project eight months ago?

That aside, I must say, I feel horrible for Alex that this has happened. As you may recall, in his third RFA, I was a major supporter and defender. Although not a nom, I was a loud voice in the first part of that RFA and I later dropped my support and eventually opposed. However, I received new information, that being the (in my opinion, editorialized) evidence of the tainted GA reviews. Your statement in his RFA and everything you've said since seem extremely contradictory to me now. None of it makes teh sense.

After Alex's behavior in the GA project, the possibility of asking him to leave the project was discussed. Several editors felt that it was a good idea, but it would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia to force one out of a Wikiproject. In the end, I think it was for the best that we left him to continue to edit in the project as he felt appropriate without enduring any further drama. He has more than redeemed himself, as many, including Bishonen, acknowledged. As far as the above recommendations that you avoid RFA for some time, I'm drawn back to Alex's GA issue. I believe you are an asset to what I consider a broken process. You clearly put a lot of effort into your RFA contributions, and that is a good thing for the community. In this situation you have shown a major lapse in judgment and put your character into question, however, in that you did sacrifice your credibility in exchange for some self-respect, the community should make note of that. While I agree that anyone would be of poor judgment themselves to accept a nom from you anytime in the near future, I believe your RFA votes can still be trusted as well-researched and reliable.

That said, I hope this situation does not discourage you too much. Having had a rough month myself, I know it can sometimes seem dreadful. And who wants anxiety over a website, right? But it's an important website for most of us and you're a valued contributor. So while I most certainly do not agree with what you've done with this RFA, and agree with others that it was epic fail, do know that you have my support as an editor and a person. We all make mistakes, it's important that we learn from them and move on. Hopefully with as little drama as possible. Best regards, Lara❤Love 06:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"do know that you have my support as an editor and a person." Me too. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

H2O and Lara, I really and I do mean really appreciate this. The lapse on my part was to continue with the nom. I was hoping by putting myself as a supporting nom, that I wouldn't have any problems----because I do believe that H2O will be a great admin. I do think he rushed it and I would have liked to have seen a few more months of discipline from him. But I kept thinking, he could run right now and he might pass---I never anticipated such a strong showing on his part.

I just haven't liked myself very much for the past few days as I've seen record after record fall. H20, know this, I would not have nom'd if I didn't believe you would be a great admin. I truly do believe that, and if something I said earlier makes you doubt it, it was my own self-abasement that lead to it. You do meet my criteria for admin... albeit, it would be with some reservations due to your blog postings. Irpen's oppose and the comments of another person, whose opinion means a lot to me, really sent me on a downward spiral this evening regarding my nom.

I didn't want to stand in your way of becoming an admin---despite our original agreement to wait til August. You know more about wikipedia than I ever will. You contribute more to wikipedia, than I have time to. It really put me in a hard place when you, whom I have a lot of respect for, wanted to push our timeline up two months. I just regret giving you "nom support." Major lapse on my part---I would have been more than happy to support you. And in the end I should have followed my guts---support but not Nom.

Lara as for your leaving the GA project about 8 months ago, no I didn't realize that. I haven't been involved there for a while... while I am a competent writer, I'm better at conveying ideas/thoughts than I am at writing prose. My English grammar skills are attrocious and my spelling stinks. As an auditor by trade and a teacher by desire, I enjoy(ed) the RfA process. I enjoyed digging into people's histories to find out if they deserved a support/oppose and I enjoyed helping people overcome their potential shortcomings. I just missed my own.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, I think I'm beginning to understand this better now. I was having trouble understanding why you had to pull your nom yet you have no problem with supporting him. And I think this confusion is something I share with others. In reading over all of your comments, I've come to think that you have a glorified view of what a nomination is. I could be wrong in this, and I apologize if this is ABF, but you appear to hold a nom in much higher regard than I consider them to be, and you seem to think that they mean something for you. Perhaps I'm in the minority with this. But, for me, a nom is just an extended, elaborate support, best made by those who have a lot of knowledge in the candidate and his abilities, and are sure that the candidate will not abuse the tools and will remain an asset to the project with them. A nom means everything to the candidate, but as far as the nom goes, it's not about you. If you have a great reputation, fantastic, but the nom is about the candidate. Your rep just gives it credibility.

You've stated multiple times across several pages that you trust DHMO and that you support his candidacy; that you believe he will make a good admin, but simply would have preferred he stick to the agreed timeline. That you have no problem giving him your support, you just can't give him nom support. Considering above, this is where things fail to make sense for me. In your crossing out your nom, that suggests to me that you don't believe in your own words. So, I suppose that is where there needs to be clarification. Did you make false claims in your nomination? If so, why? If not, why do you think that your nomination, if an honest one, should be stricken, as it's only an elaborate support? Lara❤Love 07:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent questions and observations Lara... yes, I do put a nom support at a higher level... especially because of the reputation that I've tried to garner here at RfA (but have probably destroyed tonight.) When I support a candidate, I wanted people to look at my support and know that I would only support somebody I beleive in. When I nom'd a candidate, I want peope to know that I've thoroughly vetted the candidate and didn't find any concerns. (That doesn't mean there aren't just that I didn't find any.) As for what I wrote, I just went back and re-read it. And no, I do not believe I said anything that is untrue... the dishonesty in my nom is that it didn't address what I felt were his failings. I do believe that his actions on his Blog were major stumbles---and that he needed to show more maturity in that regard. It is in what I didn't say, that was causing me heartache. Even though I thought the RfA would fail, I felt that he deserved the tools. If he chose to run for them against my advice and failed, that was his call. I wanted to support him because I do believe that he will be a good admin---I just felt bad because I didn't give a complete picture.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense to me, Balloonman. And I'm so sorry that your honest opinion couldn't be accepted by some editors. In the end, it's all about opinions, and you have the right to your own. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that you hold your own nominations in such a high regard. That's not to say I don't think you had clout in RFA, but I think your nominations should be more about the candidate and less about you, in your own mind. Someone asked you this question in his RFA, because your original draft listed his shortcomings, but you edited them out once Daniel's biography nom [;)] was posted. I believe you stated that Daniel well covered the issues and you believed co-noms should be more concise. Do you no longer believe that Daniel's tldr nom failed to cover Alex's shortcomings?

For me, this unfortunately feels like you've unburdened your guilt at Alex's expense; and a guilt from a skewed view of what a nomination is. He's previously dealt with four failed RFAs, one of pretty severe drama, and for this now to happen to him, when he's really worked hard to turn things around and learn from his previous mistakes, it's just really disheartening for me... especially when considering that you do support his candidacy. Lara❤Love 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you've unburdened your guilt at Alex's expense; and a guilt from a skewed view of what a nomination is. The first half definitely is true, for which I'm sorry... the second half may be. Daniel's nom allowed me to take a back seat and, in my mind, not have to worry about it. Daniel's nom was definitely a case of WP:TLDR... What I did read was better written and more enthusiastic than what I wrote because I kept thinking his RfA would fail.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Note: I'm going to bed now.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon

Only on Wikipedia...

I respect Balloonman's honesty, despite what I consider his continued stumbling in figuring out the correct way to display it. The one thing I just don't understand (I think agreeing with LaraLove)... how can a person revoke/remove a nomination? I was thinking this is purely a goofy in-universe wikipedia thing that makes no sense, only possible because anything can be edited at any time. Balloonman's nomination occurred, it happened, the nomination was accepted, the RfA started. The idea of crossing it out never made any sense to me... Balloonman still nominated DHMO a few days ago and wrote a statement a few days ago. It really shouldn't be changed and it is really silly that it was. It's almost like in a few months having the RNC say they no longer nominate McCain for president... that's impossible. He was/will be (in the future) already nominated. So, out of everything, yeah, go ahead and oppose, comment and explain yourself everywhere because that will be neccesary... but, Balloonman, I really hope you understand the silliness of taking back an oppose. Even sillier, is going back to the nomination, even though you were doing it in good faith, to modify it. Simply is/was not the venue to deal with the issues surrouning the 10-ton mess the RfA has become. Nomations were done a few days ago. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, people switch votes all the time during RfAs, something else that wouldn't happen in RL. I don't see very much difference in retracting a nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a part of the Wikipedia voting system, and not a bad one, also has real-world relevance (think juries). Someone can say "I wish I hadn't nominated them", but to try to erase that from happening doesn't make sense, along with modifying it after the nomination was already accepted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Situation

Well, I semi-understand your situation. I think you did the right thing in ultimately opposing since that is the way you feel. Yes, it was a miscalculation to nominate him. But it is far worse to continue to live with inauthentic (unauthentic?) feelings unexpressed about something like this. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding... This is a case that has really been eating at me. I honestly would not have nom'd if I didn't think he should be an admin---I just don't think he's ready quite yet. I just never imagined that he would get the support he has. I thought his actions would have resulted in another failed RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to chime in here, but that's possibly worse than just making what you consider to be an error in judgement about the ability of an editor to serve as an administrator. To base your decision to nominate exclusively upon your estimation of his success demonstrates a disappointing lack of substance of character. I don't expect you to do anything about it now, but your word will carry very little weight with me, and very likely others, in the future. – ClockworkSoul 03:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I would not have nom'd if I didn't think he could handle the tools... like I said on the RfA, if I hadn't nom'd I would have readily supported him. I think he should have waited another month or two... but that doesn't mean that I can't support now. I nom'd him because I didn't want to hurt his chances. Which is what I've ended up doing in a more profound way than if I had refused in the first place. Again, this isn't about his getting my support---it's about his getting my nom. That's where I blew it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't wail on you for your changing of the situtation, it takes courage to do what one thinks is right, and to accept responsibility for ones action speaks volumes to ones character. I do thank you for the message, but I think that I will continue to support H2O. If he abuses the tools the community can take action to remove the tools from his control. I apreciate your personally bringing this to my attention as well, that shows me that now, more than ever, you are indeed a user worthy of my trust. Take care, and good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you tom, I notified only you because you explicitly stated you were voting because of me. I blew it, but hope to be given the opportunity that H20 had with the GA project. H20 stuck in there and is now a valued contributor there. I hope that someday the community could forgive me as well for this nom---but not this candidate. The ONLY thing I regret is making the nom... not the support. Anonymous' question helped me realize that.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is far better to forgive and forget at this point as I'm hoping the rest of the community is willing to do. With that said, its time to move on from this. Best regards from SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SM. I hope to be given the opportunity to redeem myself in the future.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon

I wholeheartedly agree with Matisse. Anyone can make a mistake, but squarely facing up to a whopper like this one shows real character. Even if I hadn't agreed with your decision I'd have respected you for doing what you believed to be the right thing. I'm sure it'll be forgotten soon enough though, unlike poor Abu Hasan's historic fart. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I, too, found this whole incident to be out of character for you, Balloonman, but you could've easily just let it slide by not saying anything and nobody would've known the difference. Bringing it to light yourself does show real integrity. It's an unfortunate turn of events, but nobody's perfect and hopefully everyone can move on from this incident. Useight (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Malleus, though I'm sure you could have done it in another way than adding an oppose - that makes it easy to think that you're just drama-mongering. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have noted the email sent. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Records

You mentioned that DHMO was "20 !votes away" from being the most supported candidate ever. Where can I look up a record like that? Thanks. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the records at WP:100/WP:200. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He should be number 1 before all is said and done... and I would not be surprised if he has over 300 !votes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say

I'm still reading things, been offline since Friday. I never edit on Sunday, just happened to get a few minutes online today. From what I'm reading, I'm absolutely shocked Balloonman. Absolutely shocked. I have lost a lot of respect for you, and by tangent, for admin coaching. The fact that DHMO hasn't flamed you is a testament to his character. I'm going to keep reading to find some shred of evidence that your upcoming nominations, of which I'm aware of two (and one of which I've invested months of time mentoring), will not go down in flames if you don't recuse yourself from them. I hate to say this, but if you have another candidate come up with your nomination in the next several weeks, it will garner "opposes per balloonman". I won't be online much longer, and I won't be editing again until tomorrow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Its seems Ballonman has managed to take the historic level of attention (in wiki related terms obviously) off H20 and bring it back to himself. If I were synical I would call it attention seeking or even jealously. You seem shocked or unhappy that H20 has received so much attention from what Ive read of some of your comments. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In truth I believe that the "historic level of attention" is a grave cause for concern in this case, but to accuse Balloonman of "attention seeking" or "jealousy" is breathtaking in its malice. Sure, he made a whopping great misjudgement, for which he's been man enough to hold his hand up and take the consequences. Whereas you ... well, I'm sure you get my drift. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, if I were a crat (which thank the lord I'm not, sir), I'd have no hesitation at all in closing Giggy's RFA as unsuccessful; !notvote and all that, and 60 opposes clearly shouts "no consensus" to me. That "historic level of attention" cuts both ways... — iridescent 19:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? You'd close an RfA at 83% support as a fail? Wow. Avruch ^T 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it'll be a good test of the often repeated but unsupportable claim that RfA is not a vote, as Avruch has neglected to consider above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't not consider it, I just didn't mention it. It isn't a vote, but the standard is still consensus. Are you confusing it with RfBs, where the crats use "no significant opposition" (or have in the past)? RfA's don't require no significant opposition, just a 'consensus' (which hardly any RfA has, according to the formal definition, as I'm sure you'll point out thinking I didn't know). The votes and resulting percentage aren't meaningless - 83% would be, by far if I'm remembering correctly, the highest failing percentage ever. Avruch ^T 20:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And 60+ opposes would (i think) be the second-highest number of opposes on a successful RFA (and Danny's was under unusual circumstances). Wherever this goes, we're in uncharted waters. — iridescent 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No I don't believe I'm confusing RfA with anything. I am, though, pleased to hear that there's a "formal" definition of "consensus". Perhaps you'd care to share it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure nothing constructive will follow from this little aside. So, you're absolutely right and so is Iridescent, and who was I to quibble? Avruch ^T 20:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Really Malleus. Consensus = what I agree with; disruption = what you agree with; vandalism = what neither of us agree with. Day one basics. — iridescent 20:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You've embarrassed me now. I really ought to have known that. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is not the highest number of opposes for a (potentially) successful RfA. Danny's RfA closed with 118 opposes and a considerably lower ratio of supports than DHMO currently has. Given the number of people who have already weighed in on DHMO's RfA, it's unlikely he will top that number of opposes. (Yes, I know there is a big difference between the two of them, but behaviour and drama-mongering appear to have been significant oppose factors in each.) Risker (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I said IF I were synical. Im not saying that he is attention seeking or jealous. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit like me saying to you "If I were uncivil, I'd say you were talking bollox?" --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol I wouldnt consider that uncivil, ive put up with a lot worse. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well thank heavens you aren't, your appalling lack of good faith towards the supporters speaks volumes. As I read it, the opposes have just as much if not more worrying issues. You claim to not count !votes, yet you cite the number of opposes as justification. You are not allowed to assume that those who weighed in have not done due diligence in researching the candidate and their answers to the questions. To assume otherwise is a patent violation of WP:AGF. No, for better or for worse, RFA is a vote just as WMF Board and Arbcom elections are a vote. If you don't like that, well too bad. DHMO is not going to be torpedoed like GraceNotes was. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, before you start throwing ABF accusations at me for my "abusing Giggy's supporters", I need to point out that I offered to co-nom this time, supported on the last occasion as well as this one, not to mention the fact that Giggy was my nominator way-back-when. And I'm less than convinced that Arbcom elections are a true vote, either. The WMF elections have to be a vote thanks to the WMF constitution; Arbs are handpicked by Jimbo using the vote as "guidance". Do you see Giano II on Arbcom? — iridescent 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this where someone points out that, numerically speaking, Giano wouldn't be on the ArbCom even if it was a pure election? Avruch ^T 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there *is* a seat open right now, and nobody knows if it has been offered to anyone. According to Jimbo's previous message, it would be offered in turn to the people with the next highest vote percentage, which would be Rebecca, Raul and...Giano. Risker (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what it matters that this RFA has the greatest number of opposes, as far as that making it acceptable for a 'crat to close as unsuccessful at over 80% support. The RFA has generated a record response. When the numbers are staggering and record breaking on both sides, why then does the standard for consensus change and the opposition carry more weight than the supports? Tradition should not be broken simply because records are broken. The discretionary range should not change regardless of whether 35 votes are cast or 500 votes are cast. That's my pennies on the matter. Lara❤Love 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about consensus, I feel the need to mention that I'm very down on consensus lately. Consensus doesn't exist for the vast majority of RfAs. 'Crats use a very twisted interpretation of it to promote (4:1 means a supermajority, therefore automatic consensus; 3:1 means careful analysis is required). I honestly don't know how RfAs should be run, but if it were truly about promoting only if there's a consensus to promote, we'd get like three new admins a month. Enigma ^message 08:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we should also get Avi to comment on this, because 80% (example) of 90 is not the same as 80% of 400. Not just that support/oppose numbers are different. They mean entirely different things. I suppose if we were considering it a representative sample, though, 80% of 400 would be stronger than 80% of 90. The margin for error necessarily has to be less. Enigma ^message 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the number of opposes plus the number of neutrals expressing concerns exceeds the number of unopposed supports on the majority of RfAs (that being 78 at present count). This clearly indicates a level of community disquiet about the promotion of this candidate, and past controversial appointments have, in general, not gone well, with the only way to fix a mistake made here being a really really egregious violation (unlikely with this candidate) followed by a lengthy ArbCom process. Additionally, many supporters have not given any reason for supporting, while nearly all of the opposes have been reasoned (in however flawed a fashion at times). This is a common problem at RfA, and one many have addressed. I myself am conflicted here - I consider the candidate an online friend. But if we want his actions as a future admin to hold weight and for him to be respected in negotiations, then this process should be a legitimate one. If a whole heap of people are strongly of the opinion he never should have been passed, then he will have real trouble if he ever ends up trying to mediate a serious dispute. I've seen that more than a few times on here. The actions of both some of the supporters and some of the opposers warrant attention when considering this - I am appalled at some of what has been going on both on-wiki and off-wiki on the support side of this RfA (one example is Shot info - a user that Australian politics editors would note I have no particular friendship with - being blatantly harassed into dropping his oppose), and if this were any other candidate I would be seriously tempted to switch my neutral to an oppose to protest at this blatant abuse of process, but for my conversations with the candidate themselves which reveal he is both unaware of and unsupportive of efforts being made in his name. Orderinchaos 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your sig

I love your new signature! Cheers, Razorflame 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, pretty clever. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support from a Stranger

Hello. I, randomly, read the whole Adminship event regarding DHMO. I don't even know how I got there now, it took me an hour to read it.

I just wanted to say that I respect your decision to "come clean." Good luck in the future, feel free to stop by my talk page. Beam 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please view my comments under "My Oppose" on the talk page of the RfA. I, for one, support what you eventually did and understand (I think) why it happened the way it did. Don't let these fairweather friends, who seemingly spit at you at the first sign of trouble, bother you. You deserve better. Beam 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For the first time...

I wish I had email activated. I wouldn't have written what I wrote above. It was reactive, not proactive, it was brash and hurtful. I apologize for overstating my position, and for typing while shocked instead of thinking and reading first. My previous post above (and forgetting the crap that followed within the thread as it had nothing to do with what I typed), should have been in an email. Again, my apologies. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you haven't edited in over 24 hours. I'm hoping your ok. All drama is "yesterday's news". Hoping you're well, and hoping you return. You've done too much good to let a misstep derail your otherwise stellar track record. Cheers friend, have a beer on me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Keeper on this. You made a mistake, you did what you could to correct it. We can't really ask for more. Lara❤Love 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that he is now left alone for a bit so that when he resumes editing he can do so with the minimum of fuss. naerii - talk 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back B-man. Like Tan said, no busses. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)