User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 8

Thank you

Balloonman,

I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful nomination statement for my recent RFA, which I'm sure was a major factor in its success. I also wanted to just clarify, that when I said here that I wanted to get some "polishing done", I didn't mean polishing of my resume, I meant polishing my understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I hope you didn't think I was trying to "game the system" - I certainly wasn't. There were some stuff I was rather foggy about which lead to a decent number of opposes at my RFA. Anyways, just wanted to clear that up. I hope things have settled down for you.

P.S. Is mine the first RFA that passed without the nom supporting? (Don't worry - I know things got pretty hectic there, you probably just forgot!). I've posted an in-depth RFA analysis at User talk:Xenocidic/RFA and your comments are invited. Templated RFA thank-spam below. xenocidic (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! Didn't realize it, but I suspect that you are the first to pass without nom support. If you ever do have questions feel free to ask me or anybody else... the opposes did raise some legitimate concerns. For some reason, eventhough I spent hours looking at your edits, I forgot to check out your speedies.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Didn't break WP:100 but at least I set a record. Thanks again, man. Be easy. xenocidic (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So what was the reason for not supporting? Did you simply forget to do it? Or was it prearranged? Enigma ^message 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were to hazard a guess, he probably just had other things on his mind and forgot. xenocidic (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, when the circus is in town, other things are forgotten. DOH! Good to see you've not left us, Balloonman. Lara❤Love 07:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA - a new date?

Hi! Sorry about not transcluding on Friday. I really wanted to, but r/l got in the way. Had I have gone into it then, I wouldn't have been around as much as I had intended, and I would hate to fail the RFA on that. The way I see it is that you have put so much effort into my coaching, for me to go in to it on that day with the r/l problems getting in the way, I might have failed, and thus undone all that work you did. I know this week is out of the question, as I understand you are off next week. When will you be back?

Lemons, lemonade

From the vitriol of SandyGeorgia's talk page a few months ago, I was able, I hope, to turn lemons into lemonade. I wrote this for myself, but I was thinking of you and Sandy when I did. If you find it useful, great. If not, at least I like it ... --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...

...for the tone of my comment here last weekend about your 180° turn on DHMO's RFA. Long on adrenaline and short on common courtesy. I'm still upset at how you did that, but since I claim to be a grown up, I should have found a better way to express myself, or even better, hit the "Cancel" button and had a cup of tea instead. --barneca (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and NP... I do plan on posting on what I really meant... I posted on DMHO's RFA at a bad time and worded myself very poorly. If I had given it more thought, I think I might have been able to avoid most of the drama and hurt feelings that resulted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Military, er, things

Hi Balloonman. Wanted to check what your thoughts were on another potential proposal; somebody suggested merging the main categories military bases and military facilities to 'military installations.' We could set up whatever permutations of subcategories were necessary to define what was or was not a base or a facility under that main category - be interested to hear your thoughts on what was best. What do you think? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

a request for assistance on wikipedia

What's up? I notice you're one of the most sought after friends and mentors on wikipedia. I'm looking to improve my effectiveness as a negotiating/contributing editor. Negotiate as in help bring together opposing sides to consensus and npov. Anyway, the reason I'm contacting you is that I trust your opinion.

I'm looking for approximately 3 things to consciously try to communicate better or get across more efficiently on wikipedia. I'm not in need of a full time mentor or coach, and wouldn't want to bother you anyway since your so busy. But something like watch my contributions for a week or the like. You know what I mean!

If you have the time, I will be your selfless slave. Or just really appreciate it, your choice. Thanks, Beam 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your WT:RfA post

I wanted to say that it cleared up a lot and your actions make more sense now. The one issue I have is that it doesn't completely jibe with what you said at his actual RfA. There, you said you were teaching him a lesson. That's the part that really got to me. The way you wrote it now, though, I can easily forgive you for what you did, because it appears much more as an honest mistake. The question is always the intent behind it. Enigma ^message 06:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was letting him run despite my firm belief that his RfA would fail---I thought by jumping the gun, that it would fail. That was the lesson that I was thinking about. Again, I handled it very poorly.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That you were convinced it would fail isn't such a big deal. The question is whether you actually nominated him to teach him a lesson, or whether the nomination was in good faith and you merely thought that failing would teach him a lesson. I think what a lot of people were shocked by was your saying that you were nominating him at RfA to teach him a lesson. WP:POINT. Again, it's much more understandable now. Enigma ^message 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean by I handled it poorly. It was definitely the later. I wasn't nominating him to teach him a lesson... I nom'ed him because I was hoping to ease the path to what I thought would be a difficult RfA. If I was strictly out to teach him a lesson from the getgo, I would have not nomed him... or opposed him from the getgo. I thought in failing the RfA (which I believed would happen) he would learn a lesson---not to rush things and that actions (off wiki blogs) have consequences. I thought that a run in August (or even july) would likely pass, but that a failed nom now would mean waiting until next year.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A very important thing here on Wikipedia is transparency. I think your post on WT:RFA was well written and helped clear the waters. I commend you for your work to straighten all this out and tie up the loose ends. But it's over now, time to let it go. Kind of reminds me of my essay, which sort of applies. Useight (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

I'd like to request that you be my coach for a future RfA, possibly in 3 to 6 months. I am aware of a vacation you may be taking (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm willing to wait. — _Maggot^Syn 06:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey...

Hey B-man. It's been a few weeks now since "that" incident... I haven't seen you around RfA much since then and that's why I'm here.

When the GA thingy happened back last year, I felt like I had betrayed the trust of a lot of people who I had worked with, and with whom I had previously gotten on quite well. I knew these people were now talking about me, on and off wiki, telling each other it would be better for me to be banned from GA, etc. etc. I'm sure there are some who are talking about you in the same light—Iam not; I would very much like to see you back around RfA. After my incident, there were some I had though I could count on who ended up betraying my trust, just as has happened to you. Some apologised afterwards, some continued, and continue, to hold grudges—I have apologised to you, but one must be prepared for the fact that not all are equally able to admit mistakes. It's part of life.

As I've said to you before, and as you've commended, I didn't come back expecting the GA people to forgive me. I came back, put my head down, and worked to regain what respect I had had before the incident. Some people were able to see me in a neutral light, some in a positive light, after some time. Those who hadn't been hit as hard by the incident, because they weren't around at the time but only became active in GA later, tended to look up to me (somewhat) as one of the harder workers in GA. I don't say this to brag but to get across the message I hope you will take from this.

No matter when or how you return to RfA, if you do so under this account, there will be some who won't forgive and won't forget. There are still some today who despise of me for what happened 9 months ago—OhanaUnited is the most notable example. Those who opposed my RfA over the GA incident don't all fall in the same boat, but yes, in general, some people are unable to let bygones be bygones. Some would say that is their right.

However, there are (I have found) many more who will be willing to look past the unfortunate event that took place and appreciate your work overall. Those who enter the process after the event, especially, will look to you (as someone active in RfA before them) as someone to look up towards. Those who remember the incident but are willing to let it go, or at least be neutral over it, will still appreciate the rest of the work you do, if you come back and work to redeem yourself.

But if you do nothing to regain the respect you had, it won't return.

Best wishes,
giggy _(:O) 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks giggy... this public statement means a lot to me.

That being said, I honestly haven't decided if I really want to return... and that question has little to do with the incident. I have a few professional opportunities in RL that might prove to be very lucrative... but at the same time VERY time consuming. To do either of them, I would not be able to spend the amount of time on WP that I have---and I'm afraid that I may have needed to belong to WPA (Wikipedians Anonymous.)

At the same time, I've lost a lot of respect for the RfA process. Even taking out my faux pas, I think 'that' case could be a textbook on what is wrong with the RfA process, but there are other cases that have me equally disturbed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We miss you. Enigma ^message 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm part of the "we" in Enigmaman's statement. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. — _Maggot^Syn 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

Have a good one. I look forward to your return for selfish reasons but will mask that by saying take your time and take it easy! Beam 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't leave until first thing tomorrow, but I don't know how much I'll do today on WP.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Start your vakay early and avoid Wikipedia! Beam 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have returned!

I have returned to the pedia for now. I just saw the big mess that happened. I'm sorry that happened. I'm not really all that interested in being an admin anymore. My schedule looks very full now. Very full. I will return to you when I am ready, though. Thank you for what you've done. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 07:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To my co-mentor

Hey Balloonman. Thanks for all your help and mentoring for the past several months. While it's hard to say I couldn't have done it without you - on the contrary, the first RfA... - I can say that I am a more well-rounded editor now and will make a better admin because of your input. Thanks again, hopefully see you around a little more often than lately. Tan | 39 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Nom page

Hi! Hope you had a nice break. I was putting together a post for TenOfAllTrades when I went to double check my RFA Nom page for the correct URL. I was surprised to see the strikethrough of your words, although looking at the date-stamp on it I guess I shouldn't be - I think that was the point you were feeling more than a little down. Anyway, I have reverted your edits, with a note in the summary saying that I still want your nom. However, as I have reverted your edits, I feel it is only right that I let you know. If you still wish to act as my nominator, could you please indicate so on my nom page? Perhaps with a null edit and comment in the edit summary, or updating your nom? Before you say that you don't want to, please think this through.

You made a bit of a mistake, you did your best to amend. I appreciate that you are trying to save my RFA by distancing yourself from it, but I don't think it will work like that. Your name and your efforts in coaching me is all over my coaching page. There may be some who will wonder why I did not have you nominating me. They may even jump to the conclusion that I pushed for self-nomination against your wishes, and that you are keeping silent because you don't want to have a repeat of H2O's RFA.

So there are two reasons why I still want your nom support. The first is for selfish reasons - I feel that I might fail otherwise. Secondly (and this really is the main reason), I believe that your words and status here on Wikipedia still mean something.

If you still don't want to nominate me, then I will understand and respect your decision. I will ask around and see if anyone else would like to step in. However, if you will continue to be my nom, that would be great. I'll hang fire on posting my request for Co-nom from Ten until I know what you want to do. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of magic methods - what next? More input please!

As I mentioned earlier, I thought I might have to send out a post to all the RFC participants. Well I'm doing so, so here is your copied and pasted invite ;-). StephenBuxton (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! As someone who has taken part in the RFC in Project Magic, I thought you ought to be aware that it looks like a consensus is being reached, and it is probably now just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. If you could pop over to the discussion and add your thoughts, that would be great. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to the draft guidelines I created a while back, I have taken the bold action of making them the current guidelines. You can view the change here. If you disagree with the revised changes, or have any further comments on the change, please feel free to raise it on the project talk page. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Got my computer back!

Finally got it back, will set up internet this weekend. All being well, should be able to go to RFA soon... StephenBuxton (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I am not up to anything this weekend, so sitting around and answering questions will be fine. If I can get my computer up and running, will it be ok to transcribe my RFA? StephenBuxton (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, B-man is still on a "semi-wikibreak" with reduced activity levels... –xenocidic (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was kinda hoping I might catch him at one of those times he pops in. I'm likely to be a bit busy in the coming weekends, so this is probably a good time to go for it. However, I don't want to go ahead without Balloonman's approval. Still, I've waited this long, a few more weeks won't hurt; I'm not that desparate for the buttons, the power! The prestige!, The Fame!!! The ... I'm drifting. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the talk page bullshit! The dramaz! The angry editors when you deleted their article! :-) You should just go for it, man. Tan | 39 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm sure you have b-man's blessing. –xenocidic (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it... I've been busy getting a small business off the ground... but I'll keep an eye out on ya.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Grumble Discovered that not all the bits and pieces I would need for internet connection was there... be about 7 to 10 days. I'll keep you up to date. Good luck with your business venture! StephenBuxton (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

When you go for your RfA make sure to explain your recent computer troubles. You don't want to get opposes based upon "lack of recent edits" or some such nonsense. Nothing like spending $4,000 to buy software that you HOPE will make you some extra money down the road. Based upon my reputation with the tools, I can't see how it won't but, that doesn't mean my dreams will become a reality.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do - I'll add an "addition comment from candidate" to explain my low edit count this last month or so. On the plus side, it looks like the bits and pieces I need for it has been delivered now - haven't checked the contents yet, but fingers crossed... Anyway, I am busy today and most of tomorrow, but I should be able to go online at home tomorrow evening. I've believe I've got a ballooning job on Saturday during the day, but nothing on Sunday. So all being well, I'll transclude some point on Saturday. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing this post... from home! Finally... Anyway, I have a job tomorrow, but nothing for the rest of the weekend. So all being well, transclusing tomorrow afternoon. Well, this afternoon now. Boy, it's getting late - I really should go to bed or else I'll never get up in time for this balloon strangling job. StephenBuxton (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am going to be working tomorrow (they want me back for an extra day). However, I will still transclude today, as I have several hours to spare tonight, and will still be able to do several hours tomorrow. After this weekend, I will be doing what you advise and keeping away from the RFA, unless there are any pressing matters that I need to address. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done it! Let the fun and game commence... StephenBuxton (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RREV

I would've liked to see how you'd answer the questions. :( Enigma ^message 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)

   I think it is absolutely crucial. Some of the best candidates may never run if somebody doesn't put the bug in their ear.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I find it amazing that people think everybody can learn what they need to be a good admin through osmosis. Some can, but many can't. We expect our leaders to go through specialized training in virtually every endeavor. We put ourselves through extra training whenever we have to make a decision. We get trained for college, spend 4 years at school to get a degree, then get continuous education when we enter the professional world. Only on Wikipedia is seeking to get help/guidance looked down upon. What a sick perverted joke.

   The problem isn't with getting training, but rather with the coaches. Most coaches don't know how to coach. Most aren't critical enough and most people treat coaching like a rite of passage. I tend to be harsher to people who go through coaching, but that is because I had higher standards for them.

3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)

   Self-noms are definite strike against a candidate. If they deserve our trust, then somebody should be willing to put their neck on the line. I won't say that self-nom is a sign of power hunger, but it is a strike.

   A strong nom from a a strong admin/coach means a lot to me. I expect them to have vetted the candidate and their input means that we don't have to do as much---we still should, but it alleviates some of the burden.

   Co-noms---generally 2-3 noms at most.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   What we don't advertise? Come on give me a break. When people like a candidate, they go out of their way to make sure to "wish them luck" on their talk page---and any other place they can. The candidate may not post it, but how often do people wish their friends "Good luck on your RfA" on the talk pages other than the candidates?

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   90% of the questions are a joke. The only time a question should be asked is to clarify something from reviewing the candidates history/action. Or asking a pointed policy question based upon specific concerns about that candidate. Asking them canned questions doesn't tell you anything. Do your homework, investigate the candidate, see how they actually handle issues, and investigate whether or not they understand policies/guidelines.

6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

   The process is flawed. H2O's election proved it---I could write a book on the subject and for more reasons that you can imagine. And that is without mentioning me. But I can point to another candidates RfA that proved it. BrigetteSB had an RfA that was in serious doubt. It started out with something like 3-7 with calls for withdraw and SNOW. I read her RfA and struggled between a STRONG OPPOSE and a STRONG SUPPORT. There were things I REALLY liked about her and things where I had serious concerns. With the vote at 3-7, I could have buried her---but something convinced me to support instead. I supported her and she went on to get over 100 supports. I KNOW that if I came out guns ablazing, she would have failed. This case sticks in my mind because it really showed me how jilted the system is. If the candidate is strong enough that they will get 100+ !votes, then there is something wrong when that same candidate could have been buried early on!

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   It's their right.

8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)

   I would like to see more comments by the crat---especially on their rational/reasoning when a candidate is in that 70-75% range.

   I also support candidate rights to see "serious" RfA's through to the end. Even if it obvious that it will fail. I define serious as one that garners at least 1/3 supports after say 30 !votes. I feel stronger about this now than I did prior to H20.

9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)

   See coaching. Only on Wikipedia can you rationalize that training/mentoring is bad.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    A complete and utter joke. Nobody has been recalled via that process. If an admin needs to be desysopped, they will be quicker than AOR will work.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. How do you view the role of an administrator?

   Need admins in all areas. They are no different than anybody else, being an admin simply is an indication that you've earned a degree of trust.

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

   Level head, willing to learn, willing to listen, willing to take a stand, willing to make a mistake, willing to admit mistakes, willing to listen to others, willing to...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. They've now closed it for submissions that will be included in the review, but I'm going to go ahead and create a page for you. Hope you don't mind. Enigma ^message 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can ask Gazimoff if he wouldn't mind allowing its transclusion. He's pretty lenient, and told me he'd possibly allow for it. — _Maggot^Syn 09:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Gazimoff has accepted it, and it was added by Enigmaman. — _Maggot^Syn 13:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Lift Every Voice and Sing

Vandalism prediction... In about an hour or two, I expect this article to be the target of some pretty heavy vandlism. While it hasn't hit national news, I expect Rush to make it a key issue on today's show... and expect it to be heavily vandalized once people start waking up to the news.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I watchlisted it as well (otherwise I wouldn't be a proper talk page stalker!), but the trouble is that I'm not familar enough with it to know which edits are problematic. The obvious ones anyone can catch, but ones that specifically relate to the article... I'll defer to "you people". Enigma ^message 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey Balloonman, it's good to talk to you again. I have left a message at my admin coaching page for you. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Progress

Hi! Just about 24 hours into the RFA, and it doesn't seem to be going so bad. Got one oppose so far. I thought about replying to it, but decided to have a look to see what qualities User:Kmweber looks for in candidates. I scrolled back through his contributions to other RFAs, and was surprised to see that he has never supported anyone (at least in the last thousand or so contributions); all but one were opposes, the other one being a neutral. I realise now that he is the person who will automatically oppose self noms, and it would appear that he opposes those who have been coached. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I don't think anything I can say will change his mind. If anything, my responding will probably add to the opposes. So I have decided to take the philosophy that if I am to get the mop, I will need thick skin - might as well start thickening it up now!

After answering the AGF challenges, I had a look through some past RFAs to see how others answered them. I found out a couple of things instead. Firstly, you appear to be someone who is not convinced that this is a good thing for RFAs, and have warned about how answering these has caused problems. Ah well, I've answered mine now - don't think I disgraced myself with my answers. I was surprised to see that my answering the AGF challenge did get me one support vote - not because of the response, just because I did it at all!

I did also have a look to see how User:Filll votes regarding their answers to his challenges. What I did find surprised me - the few people who did answer them did not get a vote of any kind from him. To be fair though, I did see in one RFA that he asked that someone did not oppose purely because the candidate did not answer Filll's optional question. I guess he had his reasons for not voting in those, but it does give the impression that he is asking people something and not bothering to check up on the answer. I won't ask him about it now - I will wait until after the RFA closes. After all, I don't want it to appear as if I am canvassing. Besides, he might be busy in r/l and not had a chance to look at my answers. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Steven's page

Yes. I can see where people come from when they criticise candidate's who've admin coaching, as it's basically assistance from someone else in order to reach a certain goal, instead of earning yourself that position by oneself. However, I offered my support because, after reviewing the candidate, as you said, there was no element of things being rushed with a direct goal, if you get me. I think Steven is a good candidate. Lradrama 10:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I look at coaching as a means to help others expand their horizons... to go where they might not otherwise go and get experiences that might not have known about. I do not see coaching as a means to rush the process---in fact, I see it as a means to slow down the process and prevent unqualified people from experiencing a snowball. I generally expect coaching to take 2-3 months and generally won't take people unless they have a solid record to begin with. Stephen's coaching was perhaps the longest coaching I've done because he frankly had the most ground to cover to get to a point that I felt comfortable with him getting the tools. Coaching shouldn't, IMHO, be a default oppose. I will, however, admit that I am more critical of coachees. I expect people who have been through coaching to be a calibre above those who have not---if they aren't I see it as inditement on the coach.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back. Tan | 39 20:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(to coach) Is that why you ask utterly evil questions in RFAs? Asking how my attitude has changed??? I'm a bloke! I have no idea about such matters!!! I have a thick skin! I cannot possibly understand about things like demeanour!!!!! Breath, Stephen.... listen to the whale song.

Ok, I'm chilled now. But, wow, what a question to ask... StephenBuxton (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe... I'm so evil... I wouldn't ask if I didn't think you can handle it... plus, if I want to hold you up as a poster child for Admin Coaching, I want to hear how it has affected you ;-) I was also curious as to whether or not you realized how much you've changed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

Hello Mr. Balloon. Just seeing what's up! If you recall I was wondering if you could be a half-assed mentor for me. You know what I mean. I'm not trying to bother you though, I know you're busy. But to reiterate I really respected what you've done recently and at first only wanted to give you my support but I thought about it and I think someone like you is exactly what I need to help myself become a better editor, with the goal of eventually administrating. I'm rambling, talk to you soon. Beam 01:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I'm interested in becoming an administrator, and to do that, I'm currently searching for an admin coach. Are you able to take another coachee right now? If so, are you interested? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found someone else to be my coach. :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Baloon, how are you?

Hello sir. I hope your vacation was stress relieving and relaxing! Before you vacated you humbly accepted my solicitation of your wisdom and assistance in helping me become a better editor, and eventually allowing me to serve the project as an administrator. As I said before, I really do respect your contributions to the project, and have read through your contributions made in the last few months, and witnessed a true example of honesty and character via dhmo's rfa. I hope you haven't changed your mind regarding me, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to secure your help, and hopefully and eventually your friendship. Talk to you soon! Beam 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Beam and maggot

Without even looking at either of your edit histories (which is something I always do before accepting coachees.) I humbly accept your requests. I think the two of you are a little loco, but hell you'd have to be a little loco to ask me right now. I thank you for your trust. I'm going to be going on vacation on Saturday and won't have access to the internet while I'm gone, so it'll be a few days before I can follow-up with either of you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Have fun on vacation. And I prefer Syn or SM. :) — _Maggot^Syn 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded on both of their talk pages.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Admin coaching.

Hi there, I put myself forwards for admin coaching a few days ago (don't worry this isn't a "You've not matched me yet why not!" message). I saw a mention of any editor moving a current request to the "older requests section" if they've not checked up for 6 weeks or older than six weeks, however I wasn't able to find such a section on the requests page or on the main potal. There's probably jyust something I've missed there but since there were quite a few depreceated requests I thought it might be worth asking to make sure? I've also left a message on the other co-ordinator's page so if either of you would like to reply, if you want to check on my talk page and respond there if necessary, you might be able to save yourself a message.

Sorry I've I've missed something really obvious and wasted your time. BigHairRef | Talk 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

responded on her talk page. Needs more experience.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

admin coaching

Hello. I was wondering if you would be willing to be my Coach? I did notice you are still on a wikibreak but I figured it wouldn't hurt to leave this message for when you got back.--Rockfang (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		I'm Spartacus!, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I know in my heart that those who opposed have raised valid points, so I was wondering if I might enlist for rfa coaching with you. You have a good reputation for helping along potential candidates, and judging by the rfa I could do with some homework on adminship before diving into the admin workload. How about it? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Coachees???

Well, I've archived my page, with the exception of the open issues... which amounts to 4 or 5 requests for coaching... I'm honored to be in such heavy demand... but I definitely can't take that many coachees right now... especially as I am cutting back on WP... I have too many real life obligations right now. I'll look you guys over and get back to you... Tom, while I appreciate your desire to get coaching after the fact, but I'd rather not... there are others who haven't gone through the RfA process who could use the help more. I'd advise checking out NEW ADMIN SCHOOL.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha (FYI: Woody has volenteered to help if I need it there). Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar issue from different user. I wasn't trying one of the usual "Where's my coach I've waited a whole 24 hours!" questions, it was just the archival issues. I thought it was more than 4 or 5 who'd be left TBH. I was just asking about the "Older requests" instruction. BigHairRef | Talk 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm for StephenBuxton

Your enthusiasm for User:StephenBuxton in his RfA may be hurting more than helping. It gave me pause to wonder if he "was his own man" or if he was still like a freshly-minted Ph.D. under the shadow of his professor. His asking you, in effect, to back off told me I was wrong and changed my !vote from neutral to weak support. I still think the time-frame since February was too short, but I'm now comfortable he's got the wisdom and maturity to work around that, something I wasn't comfortable with earlier. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If we were only dealing with a person from February, then I would have agreed with you. While I thought in February, (Five months ago) that he wasn't ready, I think we have to look at his whole picture... I accepted him thinking he'd be ready in 2-3 months. His computer problems and own choice was to wait until now. I also think it is grossly unfair that people judge a person from getting help. It is the most ridiculous reason for an oppose/neutral I can think of. "This person is qualified and will make a great admin, but I'm going to oppose because he sought help/guidance." Sorry, I don't buy that reasoning. It is right up there with the notion that Self-Nom's should be opposed because it is prima facia evidence of power hunger. Oh wait, the same person leads both campaigns. If the person deserves the mop, then they deserve the mop, regardless of whether or not they received guidance/help.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget "opposing because the candidate won't issue cool down blocks". –xenocidic (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a few others... but yeah, that's another one. I just don't suffer weak opposes as easily as I used to.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that he sought support, it was that insufficient time had passed since he was a poor candidate. If he was in the shape he was in in February, and hadn't sought help, odds are his editing patters would've been a clear-cut "no." I look at it this way: If you are at a certain state of readiness at a given date, even if you get help from the best teachers you can only learn so fast and it is fairly unlikely you will be ready in 5 months. To use an analogy: A 3rd grader doesn't go from unable to read to getting straight A's in school in a semester. Well, most don't. It takes longer than that, even with a good teacher. Based on how he is handling his RfA, this candidate looks like he might be an exception, which is why I changed to weak support. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if he hadn't sought help his edit patterns would have remained unchanged, then he would have run for RfA and failed miserably. THEN after getting burned in an RfA, he MIGHT have changed habits or become discouraged. That is the normal course for pure vandal fighter RfA candidates. As for the time to learn, the current trend is that about 6 active months on Wikipedia is enough to be an admin---while I'm skeptical of candidates with only 6 months, that has been the trend. Thus, 5 months of coaching plus a solid record of Vandal Fighting surpasses the current expectation. As for him being the exception... that I definitely agree with. I did not expect him to dive into coaching the way he did or to make the commitment to get the experiences that he did. In many ways he went beyond what I expected, which is why I called him the poster boy for coaching ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Just putting my reply here instead of starting a new thread) it's not a problem. Yeah, I figured I was being silly by not supporting the candidate. I do have concerns that the way the admin coaching was done felt like "admin cloning" though, almost as if he was Balloonman Jr. or something like that. Then again, my nomination style is almost the opposite of yours, so it's likely only superficial differences. I mean, in the end we're both creating new admins. That's what counts :) Wizardman 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC

Creating new admins isn't really the goal, creating quality admins is ;-) I think coaching, when done properly, is beneficial. Unfortunately, I think most coaches don't take it seriously or invest enough time into the process. To me, coaching should be 1-3 months minimum---with the goal of helping the person who has "issues." It isn't generally for somebody like Happyme22 or somebody who can cross the Rubicon on their own. I see it as a means to provide a long term editorial review to help the person get exposure elsewhere. My two big things are: 1) If you want to be an admin, be an admin. You don't have to have the tools to be an admin---and people are going to trust you with the tools if they see you acting as an admin first. The ideal RfA shouldn't convey a new title, but rather make an already existing fact a reality. This shows maturity and responsibility. 2) Develop footprints in one or two new areas. I don't believe in those assignments where the coach tells someone "Go an close an XfD"... "Now go and comment on an FAC." To me, I want candidates to pick areas that are of interest to them and participate in those areas for an extended period. By establishing footprints, you participate in an area long enough to get feedback on your participation there. Are you doing it right? Do others disagree with you? etc. While I do specifically mention XfD, ANI, and Help Desk, it is up to the candidate to find a place to participate. Again, both of my main points are intended to force coachees to expand their horizons in a mature responsible manner. We may disagree on the effectiveness of such, but that is the intention.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Coaching"

I didnt' really need coaching in the normal 3 months till RAF sense, I just wanted someone to point out tips and things I could do better. If I do go for admin it's going to be next year maybe spring. If you ever get a chance scope out my diffs and give me criticism. Oh and Kosovo was a Baptism by sulfuric acid. I just picked that as my first article. American here, btw, I just chose that because I was interested in Kosovo that day... best decision ever. Beam 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, it would be cool if you humored me and said "Sure, I'll check you out and see what's up every once in a while." It would be nice, even if you weren't going to. Luckily I'm awesome, but otherwise I might be slightly bothered that you agreed to mentor me and then changed your mind because of one article I've edited. Again, fret not, I'm awesome as aforementioned. :) Beam 02:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You might want to consider editorial review... but that could be harsh. A common theme I saw were people taking offense at what you said, and that is an area where I think you could work. While you may not see your words as uncivil, others do. You've been tagged with a reputation, whether deserved or not, and that reputation affects the way others view your words. If you had a reputation of civility, breaches are more easily forgiven. On the other hand, if you develop a reputation of incivility, even minor breaches are viewed as major offenses. It may not be fair and you may disagree, but it is reality. RE your comment above, I have you on my watchlist now... and will be keeping an eye on ya... but I don't know how much time I'm going to spend on WP.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

PS it's not one article that you've written, but an arena that entices you and gets you into drama... it is difficult to edit such a contentious area and develop a reputation that is conducive for the RfA process. If you want to run for RfA, even in a year, you might want to put some space between you and the drama. Also, your article talk page edits to article edits is a red flag.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Little comments like that are great, that's exactly the "coaching" i'm looking for. A second set of eyes giving a random glance everyone once in a while. Thanks for the tips. I've noticed that some people take offense, and i try to choose my words carefully and sometimes I just don't hit submit. My reputation comes from the ridiculous interaction Husond and I had months ago... forgiving has been done and we're ok now but it was crazy for a week or two. I love Rudget for life for helping me there, but yeah I appreciate any time you do spend for my cause of becoming a better wikipedian.

As a quick thing, what talk page edits to article edits do you mean? The ratio? Yeah that's due to the 2 months of consensus discussion at Kosovo. It's not gossip or wasteful talking. Kosovo, to be in the state it is in today, as an article took literally weeks of discussion for each word in the lead, let alone pictures. The split/merge/keep discussion and title of the article took 4 days. That's where 1000 of my edits came from! But, it should also be noted that all of those talk page edits you say are a red flag are exactly where I learned most of the policy of Wikipedia. NPOV, Reliable sources, verifiabilty, consensus, civility, etc were learned through a brutal campaign of discussion and fighting POV Pushers.

After all of that, the people who were there, the respected people like BalkanFever, admin Dbachman, and even people who disagreed with me that were just editors.... they all respect me for my NPOV and consensus building. So it was worth it, imho. Beam 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize that your edits on article talk pages is the result of working in contentous areas, but that is why this area is going to make it hard for you to get an honest appraisal (at RfA or Editor Review.) It is an area where most of us don't understand (or care to understand) the nuiances that make the area so hot. But it isn't that article only. There are 5 articles where you have over 25 edits on the articles talk page, and only 2 where you have more than 10 edits on the article themselves (and one of those you have 11.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an area to work on. I have started to work at AN and ANi recently, resolving some on my own, taking the action myself, and closing out a few. ~~

See my comment in the section above... my big two things are: 1) ACT like an admin---you don't have to be an admin to BE an admin. 2) Get exposure in areas you aren't use to... it is better to establish strong footprints in a few places than brushing a lot of places.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is exactly what I needed. It's appreciated. Also, your buddy maggot doesn't like me, but I still like him. Beam 12:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted material

I'm about to recreate an article very soon. Flesh Field was deleted by you a while back, and I prefer to make you aware first, that I believe that I can provide the evidence for their notability. Was there anything in the article as far as content that can be put into my sandbox? If not, I can do it from scratch of course. — _Maggot^Syn 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I put what was there, here before recreating it, you might want to review the AfD to make sure you don't run into the same problems/issues, etc---you know the drill.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How odd you would create a subpage called flesh, under maggot. But thanks. I reviewed the AfD a few weeks back. If I'm correct, they have a new release out today which would make them notable under music #5, as well as #10 because they were in three video games and not just one. There were a few issues not revealed in the AfD (besides the video game mentions, they have been on other record labels with notable bands). Sources exist and citations will be added before moving into mainspace. :) — _Maggot^Syn 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please...

...check your email. I sent a similar message to SandyGeorgia. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And again. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Coaching me?

Hi Balloonman. I've seen your excellent nominations all around Rfa. I was wondering if you were willing to accept me as a possible coachee? --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 14:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll put you on my list of potentials... I'm not as active as I used to be... so it probably won't be until this weekend... oh wait, this is Friday... I'll take a look at you this weekend. But not guarantees.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an answer? :0 It's Tuesday. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sooo, um have you decided? :0 It's okay if you decline. :) --Meld§hal *talk to me* 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't finished reviewing you yet---but I'm leaning against it. I have mixed feelings right now, you are definitely an asset to the project and are on the right path. The big concern I have is your age. While I have nom'd a person in HS, I'm not sure if I would feel comfortable noming a person still in middle school. Your age will be a definite factor against you when/if you go up for RfA. Your Wikipedia experience is on the strong side... Let me look over your edits a little more.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Meldshal, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to decline as I don't think I would be your best advocate. You do some great work here and I think you are on the right path, unfortunately, I couldn't see myself nominating somebody as young as you. I'm not even sure if I would be able to support you for adminship---I'd probably vote Neutral. And yes, it is solely because of your youth. I do wish you well, and hope you continue with the project, becoming an admin isn't impossible. I know that there is at least one 'crat (I believe WJB) who was 13 when he became a crat. I also know that ageism is a little stronger than it used to be on Wikipedia.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I may be able to assist here, Meldshal, though I understand Balloonmans position. Please feel free to hit me up on my talk. BTW Baloonman, WJB was made a crat less than a year ago and is a lawyer living in London. Being from the decent side of the pond I have no clue what age one would be in Middle School or whatever, but I'm fairly certain WJB is a fair bit older than Middle or High School attendees..... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The crat he was talking about is Ilyanep--Finalnight (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro... this is a case where I struggled because I do think Meld is a quality candidate... but have reservations... and I don't want to put myself in the position (again) where I might end up noming somebodu who I have reservations. This is a case where somebody else might be better suited to do the job.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Pedro will be kind to me. I'll come back to you if I ever do pass adminship, Balloonman. :) --Meldshal (§peak to me) 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA

I agree. I've left a message at WT:RFA that you may wish to see. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

heh, and a question

First of all - LOL. Second, if someone's current personal policy is not to vote in RFAs, what is your opinion on them adding questions to it? –xenocidic (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you. I can't speak towards other people's personal policies in this regards. I will say, that nobody would even notice if a person asked a question and didn't vote. The only time that MIGHT become an issue is if the person developed a reputation for doing so and it appeared that they were doing "drive by (harrassing) questions".---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So am I out of line here? –xenocidic (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up... I was a little worried that you might have been canvassing, and hadn't looked to see if I was the only one who you contacted as your coach/mentor or if you had contacted others. I'm VERY glad to see that it was the former and not the later. Filll is a little problematic. In some ways, he is developing a reputation similar to the one that Kurt has with Kurt's opposes. While I don't like it and think it is a little disruptive, I don't see that reputation as having reached the point where it has become overly disruptive. As such, I probably wouldn't have said anything. Of course, I defend Kurt despite my thinking his opposes are unfair to the candidate. I would probably defend Filll's right to ask his (unfair) questions as well. I'm on the record already as not liking that the questions are asked in RfA's.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just you. Alright, thanks for your input. I must admit, my annoyance does somewhat stem from my own experience of spending about 2-3 hours on those questions and not even getting so much as a "thank you for answering", and Filll creating a subpage in my user space to paste my answers without asking me. –xenocidic (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't like them for RfA's. I've considered asking them during coaching because they are great for stimulating discussion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(e.c) I commend Xeno for bringing it up, I had wanted to address Fill similarly for a while but didn't. I chimed in as well. I think all three of us can agree there should be no "rule" against Fill adding those questions if he wants to, but at least now he knows Xeno's concerns and mind as well regarding the questions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

and now for something completely different

so I guess the whole thing today got me in the mood for coming up with my own RFA question, I'd appreciate your input on it... User:Xenocidic/RFAQ –xenocidic (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a good person to ask... I don't like stock questions for RfA's. I think the only questions asked in RfA's should be those that are specific to the candidate based upon one's investigation of the candidate. At first look, it looked cumbersome... was the whole page the question? If so, you will probably end up with some opposition.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It basically attempts to simulate looking at a contrib/warning/block history of a vandal, something admins on a block/unblock patrol are tasked with on a regular basis. Basically to tell us how potential admins would respond to a vandal who says they want to begin contributing constructively. –xenocidic (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouetcetcetc

You did it! You took a humble vandal fighter, and turned me into an admin. Why you chose to coach me is still a puzzle, as I have seen your criteria, and I know I didn't meet it. But you did, and for that, I am forever grateful. I know the RFA finished just over 24 hours ago, so this is a rather belated thank you. However, I wanted to thank all the other participants first. In short - I wanted to save my biggest thanks to last... and that is to you.

I'm no good with creating html templated messages, and I always thought they were a bit impersonal. So I resolved that I would thank each and every participant with a personalised reply. But to do the same for you? I don't think that would be enough. I know that recent events here at WP have caused you stress, but we all move on, and it is good to see that you have too. I am also grateful that despite your busy life off of wiki, you managed to see the RFA through.

So, for all of the above, and so much more, I award you this:

		The Original Barnstar
		To Balloonman, for being an outstanding coach, his tireless work in shaping inexperienced Wikipedians into dilligent mop wielders, and for his work in the whole RFA process. Thank you! StephenBuxton (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I took you, while you didn't meet my criteria is because I saw something of CLUE in you... and I think I was right... time will tell, but I wasn't lying when I said that you were the poster boy for the admin coaching process.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

One other comment, in all honesty, when I told you the truth and how long I thought it would take you to be ready for RfA, I thought you would run... I don't have high expectations for vandal fighters on a whole. I think that many of them are vindictive and seek power for the wrong reasons. I was surprised by how thoroughly you embraced the task and how much you were willing to do to prove yourself. Some may call that "power hunger," but I call it commitment. You weren't seeking the tools to be "God," but rather to contribute to the project. You proved to me that you wanted to learn and to do it right... that's what impressed me in the long run.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

*blushes* Well, the way I saw it was that you had taken time out of your busy schedule to instruct me, so I figured that to do anything less than a decent amount of work would be to do you a dis-service. Also, you wanted to know my reasoning, and I felt that if I had just put down bullet points or a brief summation, I might have missed out any incorrect assumptions; in short, I wanted you to be sure of what I was reasoning. I guess that is why my coaching page got so big...

Anyway, having sat through the RFA, and read through the various comments and concerns, I thought I would mull over them and put forward a coachee's perspective at the admin coaching talk page. The concerns people had were valid (hopefully I can in time prove them to be unjustified, but they were valid). Once again, thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The concerns are valid, but that doesn't justify kneejerk reactions. Judge the individual for who/what she is, don't make an assumption and !vote off of a pre-conceived notion/idea. A white guy may have valid concerns walking in harlem in the 60's at 2am, but that doesn't mean that the African American offering to help him is a thief.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of removing concern. The concerns that people had about me was that whilst it looked like I knew the basics, there wasn't a huge amount of me working on my own without you commenting. If I had transcluded straight away, then maybe even more people would have raised concerns. I had waited about 6 weeks, and I got about 5% concerns (would have been more if some hadn't have switched to support). Perhaps a waiting period of a couple of months after the coaching sessions finishing for the coachee to go forth and prove to everyone that they do have what it takes. I agree with you that a coachee should be judged harder than a non-coachee, because they have in effect been spoon-fed answers, regardless of the motive of the coach and coachee. In our case, I know it was genuine. However to others, they aren't to know that for certain, unless they have worked with either of us before. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposes because of admin coaching

Hi Balloonaman. I noticed you do a lot of admin coaching. Yes, I would like admin coaching someday, I just don't know who should coach me. Anyway, I noticed one some RfAs, editors oppose candidates because they were admin coached. Why is that? Isn't admin coaching supposed to teach users about administrators and what they do? Thanks in advance. -- RyRy (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically the reason why people oppose due to admin coaching, IMHO, comes down to a couple of factors:

1. A number of coaches/coachees don't do it right. Take a look at my essay on the admin coach where I talk about the role of coaching and the coach. Also take a look at my essay Coaching Philosophy, where I talk about my philosophy on a coaching.
2. A few coachees have been rushed through the process, resulting in candidates who are under qualified. IMHO, coachees should be held to a higher standard and coaches should not nominate candidates who can't stand that higher standard. Unfortunately, people don't remember the top quality candidates who have benefits from coaching, instead they recall the one's who were complete failures.
3. A few coaches have taken on candidates who don't need coaching. The ideal coachee isn't the person who is all but ready to run, but rather the person who can get there, but may need some help. When a coach takes on somebody who doesn't need help, it looks as if the coach is doing it for his/her own glory, not to help others. It also looks as if the coach/coachee is trying to game the system.
4. Some coaches focus on HOW TO PASS an RFA. While I will give advice, my advice is pretty much limited to essay on how to pass an RfA which is pretty much the reasonable expectations.
5. Many coaches treat coaching in the wrong way. They think the goal is to give assingments and send their candidates to do certain things. I've literally seen some coaching pages where the coach gave the coachee a bunch of "homework" assignments such as "Go comment on 10 XfDs" "Now go greet 20 new users" "Now go do a peer review" "Now go participate in an FAC." While these assignments have the candidate going to places they may have never been, it is A) very contrived and B) can actually be more disruptive to the regulars at the given projects. The people at FAC don't want somebody unfamiliar with FA expectations making drive by comments. Likewise, making ten or even twenty edits at XfD's can cause more problems. The coachees may not know the expectations, may use faulty logic, and never get the feedback. IMHO it is much more beneficial to have a coachee spend 2-3 months dedicated to 1 or 2 areas that interest them and getting to know that area. I want them to be seen as knowledgable in an arena or two rather than "yeah, I made a token appearance in 20 areas." One of the big benefits of "establishing a footprint" is that it lets others respond to the coachee. If the coachee doesn't understand a policy/guideline, then others who are familiar with the area will let them know. By establishing a footprint, the coachee gets the chance to demonstrate his/her knowledge and shows the ability to work with others.
6. There is also the belief that coaching prepares those who shouldn't be coaches or creates clones of the coach (of course, my coachees are anything but clones---I'm often !voting in different ways than them.)
7. The primary role of a coach, IMHO, is to serve as a guide and to do a LONG TERM Editor Review. By the time the candidate runs for Adminship, there shouldn't be any surprises. I've been surprised at what people have found for non-coachees, but rarely have they come up with something for a coach.

There are probably other reasons and I'm certain that some probably think that I've missed the key issue (as they see it) but I think the above are the key issues.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for a coaching, Balloonman is one of the best. —Giggy 04:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, one of the best... but thanks for the vote of confidence ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, Giggy, I'm not necessarily looking for a coach right now. I just came to ask this question. Anyway, Balloonman, I think you have hit the key points of why admin coachees are opposed for the reasons you have given. I'v noticed very potential candidates opposed, and repeatedly for that matter, because of how the candidate was coached. Thanks for telling me, this was something that I was confused at of why there are such opposes. Balloonman, do you have any current coachees or are you allowing yourself to have anymore, because I would be happy for someone like you to coach me. But I wouldn't want to be coached anytime soon. I'll be patient if your busy. I wouldn't want to rush on adminship, a slow pace is much better. -- RyRy (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know how active I'm going to be going forward... I'm in the process of starting a my own small business and don't really have the time to commit to WP like I used to... after Happy22 is finished with his RfA, I'll reassess my commitment to the project... as far as taking you as a coachee, I'd be happy to take a look at you when you are interested... assuming that I am still active.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw, that's sad to hear... Just don't retire from Wikipedia; I'm sure many many users will miss you if you did. And I'll come to you when I feel ready. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much I'll be doing or if I'll actually take a break or not... I am kind of a wiki-aholic so I might not take anytime off and resume my addiction... we'll see. I know that I SHOULD take this time and back off completely!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		I'm Spartacus!, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And a special thanks to you, Balloonman, for being a wonderful admin coach and friend. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rfa

Heh, guess I am in the Hillary Clinton position, bail and piss off supporters, stay and continue to earn detractors.--Finalnight (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't piss any of us off, but I guess we just think you still have a fighting chance. Since you said you don't plan to run again, if it's not causing you too much undue stress, just let it ride... (imo) –xeno (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said on your talk page, I would encourage you to come back in a few months time to rerun... I do think you have the potential to be an admin. While I opposed, and fairly strongly, I would not have objected if you passed. You do have the spark.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comment made at RfA

I don't understand your recent comment on Keeper's talk page, Balloonman. Surely that discussion would have accessable (at least viewable) throughout both the nominatiors and nominee's, then, latest contributions? One oppose that, ultimately, you feel lead to the eventual overall unsuccessful outcome of the RfA is not what I'd expect from a user familiar with my criteria at RfA. Regards, Rudget (logs) 19:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the one where I said that your !vote sealed the deal? Or which comment are you referring to? If it is that comment, then it is more about the mentality of the RfA process that I was referring to. The RfA was already hurting and likely to fail. The fact that the candidate was considering withdrawing is an indication of that. It MIGHT have passed if the supporters could have rallied around him and overcome some of the objections, but once everybody knew that he was considering pulling it, then it might have well been dead. Your referencing the fact that he knew the RfA was already in trouble, while completely justified and acceptable, sealed the deal. The RfA sheep mentality is to support the RfA's that appear to pass (don't oppose them) and to join in the one's that are going to fail---that way (the generic) you can claim to oppose candidates. This is often done without even looking at the candidates talk page. Once you made your post, which again I have no problem with, I was worried about people piling on. If you are referring to another comment, please let me know. ALso let me know if this doesn't address your concern.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It does address my concern, adequately in fact. Thanks for the response. Rudget (logs) 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As a third party view, I didn't view Balloonman's comments on Keep's page to be critical of your oppose, Rudget. I think it was relatively clear that he just thought your oppose would garner more opposition, which I agree with. Tan ǀ 39 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem now. As before, thanks for the explanation. Rudget (logs) 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)