User talk:I'm Spartacus!/archive 9

Mentoring/Advanced Editor Training

Balloonman, I've noticed that you're moving into semi-retirement, hence why I posted this request to Keeper76 instead of yourself. However, if you have any thoughts or suggestions yourself, I'd love to hear them. I'm keen on developing my capabilities as an editor beyond standard article writing/cleanup, policy development and AfD participation, and would be keen to find a mentor to help me with this. Please note that I'm not seeking or contemplating adminship, merely looking at maximising what I do as an editor. Many thanks in advance for any advice, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hello. It's me again. My adoption is pretty much over, and yes, I'm now asking if you could admin coach me. I'd be honored to be your coachee. But considering that you semi-retired, I have a feeling I am going to be your last coachee, that is, if you accept my offer. If you do accept, I will know you will not as be as active, but I can live with that. TBO, I don't really care how long this admin coaching really takes. Administratorship is no big deal anyway... although it has been said by Jimbo Wales that is has become a bigger deal than before. Well, I don't know where to begin, so I guess I should start by explaining a little about myself and what I do here on Wikipedia.

Let's see. I do a lot of WP:AfD participation, more particularly closing AfDs as non-administrative closures. I sometimes comment on AfDs also, but I admit, I do more closing than commenting these days. I do a lot of WP:DYK work. I have created 7 DYKs, with 3 new ones on my way. I also move DYKs to the next update and I review DYK suggestions. So if I do become an administrator, one of my main areas would be DYK updating. I do some vandalism-fighting here and there and I have reported quite a lot of users to WP:AIV, and I sometimes do some AIV clerking using User:RyRy/Noticeboards. I do some CSD tagging sometimes, but not as much though. I haven't really had much participation in WP:RFPP, TBH. So I hope to improve in that area. I do a lot of article writing and expanding. Most of which are my current DYKs. My DYKs can be found here. I used to participate a lot at the Wikipedia:Help desk. I think I have about 200 contributions in that area. I sometimes, but not as much, participate in WP:AN and WP:ANI. Oh, I do a lot of userpage designing to help out some users who can't do that themselves. You can look at my user page for a list of them. I also to some WP:ACC work. My edit summary usage has been perfect for about 3-4 months straight now.

There are some things that I am not really happy to say in my history here at Wikipedia, but if your going to be my future admin coach, I'll be free to tell them. When I was a beginner here at Wikipedia, most people thought I used wikipedia as a WP:MYSPACE. That was, I'd say, during my first two months here at Wikipedia. Since then, I've learned that Wikipedia is not a myspace and I have improved greatly from then. User:Ryan Postlethwaite said that a few days ago, and I believe my self have learned that. I sadly had some rollback issues. I had it revoked 3 times. Mostly because I was reverting good faith edits and non-vandalism edits. I've basically improved from that since I have made many reverts with rollback the last time I was granted it by User:Keeper76. You can see my user rights log to see for yourself. I also had some copyvio issues. My most recent one was around the first week of May I believe. But I have learned since then. I have also had some problems deciding if I contributed to an article greatly or not. The problem was that I added something to my user page saying "I greatly contributed to this and that", but I really didn't. But this was a long time ago, and I have learned from it. That copyvio issue in May was basically my last major issue that occurred to me.

Well, that's basically all I have to say. By the way, if you look at my edit count, you'll see a big drop in my edit count. That's because I have been contributing to the Simple English Wikipedia under a different username, RyanCross. Chances are, I'll be becoming an administrator there in just 1-2 months. I do most of the deletion tagging, AIV (over there acalled VIP) reporting, and I've written a GA there, ect. I'll be busy at Simple English Wikipedia from time to time, just to let you know if that should affect my admin coaching or a future RfA of mine.

Anyway, I really hope you can take me on as your admin coachee, even if it's your last time you coach. I'd be honored if someone like you were to caoch me, even if you are semi-retired. I'm very patient, so you won't have to worry about time.

Best regards, RyRy (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RyRy,

I'm not going to promise anything, but I'll try to take a look at your edits this weekend. Your willingness towards patience is a big plus, because I am not going to be as active as I've been in the past... I'm in the process of starting a new business and am dedicating most of my free time to get that business started. (It'll be another 2 months or so before I generate any revenue, but I'm hoping to make a pretty penny between then and Christmas.)76.203.156.238 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well then. Take however long you need to. I understand how starting and running your own business takes time and much dedication, and if you can't do much, or if any coaching anytime soon, that is fine with me. I have absolutely no problem with that. However long it takes, I'll wait. Thank you very much, and I hope you do become my coach. :) And good luck starting and running your own business. I know how that feels. :) Best, RyRy (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, I'm Spartacus!!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin Coaching

My reply here. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you so kindly for the review. :) -- RyRy (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. -- RyRy (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about notifying me... I do keep an eye on people's talk pages. The only reason I responded on your page was because I wanted to make sure that my comments became part of your "record" so others could see them down the road---reviews are the one time that responses should go on the requestor's page---not where the conversation began.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi there, I noticed you were online. I had a question about the RfA process. In your opinion, what amount of nominators do you think is enough for one RfA? A while ago, I heard an RfA failed generally because there were too many nominators. Though, Phaedriel's RfA passed with tons of nominators. Oh, and why is the main nominator usually the one with a longer nomination statement than the co-nominators? Will be waiting for your answer here. Best, RyRy (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if I Was online when you posted this it must have been just before I went to sleep that you saw me... But my answers to the above are in here: User:Balloonman/How_to_nominate_somebody_for_RfA ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Balloonman. What do you know, your online again. :) -- RyRy (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not... BTW, I noticed that you like working on user pages... do you by any chance have any idea as to why my page is now centering? I think it has something to do with the changes I made to the /Coaching page, but I couldn't figure it out.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And, perhaps why the font is so tiny? hurting my eyes! =) –xeno (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the last response... I'm busy with a DYK. Anyway, I'll be sure to check that out, maybe looking through your edits might and looking at the diffs you made in userspace might help. In the meantime, I was wondering if you thought designing user pages is a bit myspacey, and if it would affect an RfA. I actually see it as assisting a user. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as it isn't the only thing that you do it is ok. That's a weak OK... some may not like it, but I think it is kind of cool... it is something different. You just have to make sure that you contribute meaningfully elsewhere.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, I don't do much user page designing these days anyway. I'm more focused on other areas of Wikipedia. How about WP:AIV clerking and reporting? A look at my first 100 or so contributions show a lot of AIV clerking... -- RyRy (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ry, don't worry so much about passing an RfA. Do what you like. Focus on what makes you happy on wikipedia, and the rest of the community be damned. Your editing shouldn't with the focus of passing an RfA, do what you like and sell your involvement at RfA. People at RfA like to see people who do "different" things. They key is to be involved in different areas in a productive manner---especially if they show discretion, civility, constructiveness, etc. If you edit for the sake of passing an RfA, it will kill your chances at an RfA. The project is big enough for people with different focuses. You are asking me how to game the system, I do not game the system, I encourage people to be best that they can be where they want to be...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what your leading to Balloonman... and I see what you mean. Yes, I like contributing to Wikipedia. It's a hobby for me actually. I'm trying my best not to Game the System, and I wouldn't want to edit because I want to pass an RfA. Were here to build an encyclopedia, not build a successful RfA. Anyway, thanks for the advice, Balloonman. Best, RyRy (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image talk

re. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natl1 3 - check out my image talk edits (I probably have one or two deleted) - yet I'm a Commons admin and ran my RfA noting images in Q1 (and that didn't get opposition... other stuff did ;-)). Sorry to say I don't think your comment re. image talk edits is really valid. —Giggy 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you do have the commons expertise ;-) If somebody were to question your images here, that would more than make up for it. When somebody who has negligible edits to an area, with the history he had, then it becomes valid. I only questioned his image contribution because it was being used as a reason to support. But my big concern was his year long vacation... as far as I was concerned he was a person with 6 weeks experience and 1500 edits. I don't hold activity of a candidate from a year ago against the candidate, nor will I use it in support of a candidate. I ONLY look at the last year.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 00:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question for my mentor

This is another one of those "was I totally off base?" things... There's people on both sides of the coin. Asking you because I know you won't sugar coat it. See Wikipedia:AN/I#User:Calton. P.S. I fixed your talk page. The tables on your coaching subpage weren't closed. –xeno (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't dig into the original edits too much, I pretty much only read the discussion on the AN, but I don't think you were off base. The user appears to be disruptive and problematic. I see a lot of people joining you in criticism, but nobody is defending colton. (There are some that are giving the weak, "I know he has problems, but..." defense.) The one thing that I would stress with you, and your comments, Admins are NO different than non-admins. The ONLY difference is that we have a few more tools and responsibilities. But when it comes to consensus, our opinion weighs no more than anybody else (unless we as individuals have built that respect.) I think your approach was significantly less bity and as the newbie was listening, I think the most Colton should have done would be to chime in on the discussion... instead, he appears bite. Of course, this again is all at the mile high level---I didn't pull up the links you tied too... I'm going to bed, and Mr IP's RfA actually has me more riled up than I should let it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Yea, I've taken on board some of the thing's bish said. I didn't mean to imply that admins were on a higher ground - Calton's actions (imo) would be inappropriate no matter who he was interrupting with his templates. I shouldn't have muddied the waters with the admin statement. As for the pointy RFA...meh, yea, I would just forget about it really. –xeno (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, by making a point about your being an admin and his conflict with another admin, makes it into an "us versus them" conflict and opens the doors for criticizing you for your "power hunger." It would have been better to describe his actions, how you were constructively working with a newbie, how the newbie was trying to learn the ropes, and then he came in and bit the newbie while an established editor was trying to educate a newbie and realize the problems he might encounter. Calton would have then been justified in saying something to the effect of, "I came here to issue a warning, but I see you are talking Xeno about the issues, please listen to what he says" or something along those lines.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

k, that's sound advice. thanks. –xeno (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman: I am here to express my STRONGEST thanks for expressing your honest opinion in my RfA :D I never take offense at a strong statement, and I appreciate the input. I didn't mean the RfA as a POINTy affair — more of an earnest experiment, as well as an honest long-shot attempt to become an administrator. I just want you to know that I didn't set up my RfA as some sort of self-fulfilling propaganda attack on the current RfA system, even if it seemed like that. Honest to goodness, not my intention. As for the essay, that was something I actually threw in there about an hour after I had already posted the nom ([1]) — it just popped into my head as something useful to do. I never intended to write a POV rant about the process, because I'm actually an RfA moderate. I think the current system is fairly solid, but that it suffers horribly from the lack of a trial-period mechanism and the absence of a regular desysopping process...and if we developed those processes, we could have better and more open RfAs. Not new ideas, obviously, but I want to put together a coherent essay on the subject. Basically, the essay was and is tangential to my nom.

All that said, I'm comfortable with not being an admin, and I'm not gonna complain about the community's decision. I am an extremely strong believer in consensus, and the consensus is clear — the problems go beyond my "checkered past". For this reason, I have decided not to attempt an RfA again, and to keep finding other ways to work on Wikipedia. Thanks again for your views, and I hope to work with you positively in the future. Cheers! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the personal note Mr. IP. While I haven't always agreed with you, I've respected your crusade. I was serious that if you had, IMHO, taken the process seriously I would have evaluated you differently. I would not have been opposed to giving you a fair shake. As it was, it came across extremely POINTY. It was the POINTYness of the RfA and the notion that the process would be an accurate gauge of people's reactions towards you, that made me your most vocal opponent. Think of it this way, it was kind of like the teenage boy approaching a teenage girl asking her out for a date by says, "I know that somebody like you could never be interested in a looser like me, but..." Even if the girl might have been interested, such an opening would have doomed the date. It poisoned the well. Anyway, I wish you the best going forward. I would have been interested in seeing how your RfA might have fared if you gave it a real chance.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good analogy. I remember doing that once or twice as a lad, though I learned quickly. I very much believe you that you would have supported under better circumstances. I do slightly regret not prepping the nom better, and going in all POINTy-looking like that, but in the final view I may not have made the best admin anyway, and I've been happy here for many years without the tools, so in the end things have worked out well enough. Maybe I'll run for the WMF board instead. j/k Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like think that I could have... I would have done my typical due dilligence, but as you are probably our most notable IP'er, I wouldn't have discounted you out of hand.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Rfa !vote

Yup. Sorry about that, I had to leave suddenly and never got time to fix the edit. I'll do that. Meisfunny Gab 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on the creation of this page

I respect your opinions that I've seen thus far (even when I've disagreed) and I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on potentially creating this page? I've contacted the user in question as well. S. Dean Jameson 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A few potential issues (both good and bad): 1) He doesn't have 6 months of active editing (yes, he's been around for a few years, but he's only been active for 4.5 months.) 2) His edits to articles is fairly limited---only 4 articles have over 20 edits and only one of those has more than 10 edits on the articles talk page. 3) User talk looks ok... not overly excessive and not too little to indicate no communication with others. 4) Wikipedia area is a little sparse---he's been involved in several xFD's that boost the count. 5) Some incivility was pointed out in the first RfA, 6 months has passed and if it was an isolated incident, it could be overlooked. 6) Total edit count looks fine---while a large number of edits doesn't prove credentials, lack of edits can be indicative of a problem That isn't an issue here. 7) He's primarily a vandal fighter and strong on the deletion side. A few months ago, strict vandal fighter would have been a guaranteed fail. It can still going to hurt, people are wary about passing vandal fighters who don't know what it is like to build the pedia. This bias isn't as bad as it might have 2 or 3 months ago. 8) This is a minor point, but might byte him, when he noms for CSD, he doesn't tag the reason why in his summary. 9) My quick review of his CSD's indicate several wherein I disagree with his rationale. In particular, he might want to review wp:PN. 10) He has some excellent contributions to XfD's and despite being a CSD'er doesn't appear to be a deletionist---which is very good. I've only spent about 40 minutes reviewing him, but I would be hard pressed to support. That's not to say that he wouldn't pass, the nom and his answers could help shape the above concerns.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello! As the subject of the conversation, I would like to address some very obvious errors and omissions in the review of my contributions. First, regarding the comment that my "edits to articles is fairly limited" -- that is only because I spend most of my time creating new articles rather than cleaning up the work of others. To date, I have brought 125 original entries to Wikipedia during the past 4.5 months -- all of which are listed on my User Page (including 43 DYK honours since May). I am not certain why you failed to mention that, and the claim that I "don't know what it is like to build the pedia" doesn't seem to make sense in view of this. Second, to say that I am "primarily a vandal fighter" is news to me, since I am not part of the Anti-Vandal Patrol and I only report incidents of vandalism that I accidentally discover in my work with the Welcoming Committee and the New Page Patrol -- neither activity was cited in this mini-review, even though my involvement in both efforts is clearly identified on my User Page and evidence of these activities can easily be located in my user history and patrol logs. Third, I have been actively involved in a number of WikiProjects (also clearly identified on my User Page), and in a few of them I am the only editor who is actually expanding their contents (please check the WikiProjects for Agriculture, Bodybuilding and Unitarian Universalism to confirm that). At the risk of being rude, I have to request that more time and care be invested in reviewing the full spectrum of a candidate's contributions, rather than isolating bits and pieces. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken and I hope you didn't take offense above. See the above is the type of thing that you would need to highlight in a nomination statement and your answers. You have to remember that I was looking at your history fairly blind. As for more time, I will dedicate more time if you choose to go forward with the RfA. I'm not set in stone one way or another at this point. I only spent about 40 minutes reviewing you---which IMHO isn't enough time to truly review anybody. (Thus, my criticism at RfA talk that people don't spend enough time reviewing candidates.) I do, however, think you would be better served waiting a month. First, if you wait until September, you will be able to claim six months of solid editing. Second, I do think you need to start tagging your CSD's with the reason in the description---it is one of the few places where I really expect to see specific information. Third, I would recommend you review the guidelines on Patent Nonsense and Hoaxes. Particularly patent nonsense.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Oddly, I am not going for RfA at this time -- our mutual friend seemed to think I was ready, but I don't agree the time is right for me. So at least you and I have common ground in one area! Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There were definitely good things... I REALLY liked your XFD contributions and your talk page was solid. The purpose of my review above wasn't to give a "complete" picture, but rather highlight things that might cause an RfA to stumble. I saw nothing that would flat out doom it. I think that a month or two would serve you well if you want to make a run.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your input is greatly valued. Thank you for the encouraging words and cogent advice, which was certainly not G1...or is it G3? <kidding> Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Response from Jameson

Thanks for taking a look. I know that you have much different standards for supporting an RfA than I do, which is why I asked you to take a look. While I tend to disagree with some of your standards (I don't see much benefit from holding candidates to a particular time length, i.e 6 months, 4 months, or whatever, for example), I have always respected your commentary offered at RfA. I tend to be closer to Keeper on the spectrum of who I support (and why) at RfA, and initially considered leaving this note on his page. Once I thought i through, though, I realized that I didn't want an echo chamber, but rather someone who would offer counterpoints to all of the good things I see in Eco. I view Eco as highly qualified for adminship, but I knew if there were any "warts" that might trip him up in an RfA, you would point them out. I also knew that you would do so in a way that was not in any way antagonistic toward Eco.

Lastly, I've been keeping my eyes open for good administrator candidates, and Eco struck me as a really good possibility. But, I would definitely not want to nominate someone that had a decent chance of failure. I've seen what that can do to good contributors, and it's not always pretty. My last question for you, then, would be whether or not you think that a nomination coming from a user like me (a relatively short-timer) would be a "kiss of death" for a candidate? If so, I'll postpone my search for good ones until which time as my nomination itself would put them in a hole. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this. Regards, ^S. _D.Jameson 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A nom from a new user isn't a kiss of death, but who does the nom could affect the candidates chances. I have a couple of essays on my main page that you might be interested in. One is on "How to nominate somebody for an RfA" and the other is on "how to pass an RfA." Your first nom can be the most challenging one---as people don't know how well you vette candidates, they might be a little more skeptical. Co-Noms are always a possibility. I personally have become a fan of co-noms. I like it when there are two people noming a candidate---espcially when one is an RfA regular and the other isn't. To me, that is an encouraging sign. EG I would rather conom with janedoe than Keeper/Rudget/Wisdom,etc. While Keeper/Rudget/Wisdom are better known in Rfa circles, I think it speaks well for the candidate to have an outsider make the nom!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think your last here is well-conceived. Would you mind if I ran my ideas for potential nominations past you? My standards more resemble Keeper's, but I think that perhaps the very contrast between someone with standards like mine, co-nominating with someone with standards like yours would give a candidate an even better chance at success. ^S._D.Jameson 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem reviewing potential candidates... just realize that it may take me a few days to get back to it... I am not as active here as I used to be. Also, I learned something here, in the future I won't review a potential nom without their knowledge first. Eg, it was probably a mistake on my part to put a review of eco in print without his blessing. I won't do that again.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• If it was anyone's mistake, it was mine. I told him I asked you, but only after I'd already posted it here. Sorry about that. ^S._D.Jameson 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, neither of you made mistakes. No harm done -- and the good thing is that I made the acquaintance of Balloonman (I don't believe we ever conversed before). Besides, like Mae West said, it is better to be looked over than overlooked! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This time there was no foul, but in other cases, I could see somebody reacting poorly to having an unsolicited review... it's more of a "I don't want to piss somebody off, than I have."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Hiya. I tweaked your oppose vote at the rfa for BQZip01 becuase you had mislinked TheOtherBob (talk · contribs). I hope that was ok. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ooops, thanks.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, you are welcome to oppose me, but I have already added a note about CC in the comments. The reason I didn't add all of that history in was because I chose not to delve that deep into it (and the history with this sole user would take a lot of time/space to explain). If there is something specific you have in mind, please ask. Like I said before, I'm not here to hide anything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you shot yourself in the foot by not delving into it. As you said, it was the elephant in the living room, by failing to disclose it yourself it raises questions as to "what else hasn't he told us?" There might not be anything else, and I trust you when you said it wasn't meant to be deceptive, but I'm a firm believer that you should confront issues head on in RfA's. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck however it turns out. I did see some really good comments from others on your talk page which I liked. Unfortunately, the CC issue really hurts.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then why not ask about it? This process isn't a one-time catch all. People can make mistakes and make corrections. Now that I have put more information into it, is there anything else you would like to know? If not, why still oppose? If so, what can I elaborate upon. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this doesn't appear to be a one and done issue... or even an issue in the past, but rather an ongoing conflict with you and CC. As an ongoing issue, that you yourself indicated is probably bound for Arbcom, it is a concern at an RfA---especially, when you have people at various stages warning/criticizing you for your interaction with CC. If the blame laid strictly with CC and he was dogging you, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, you seem to be at least partially responsible for maintaining the conflict.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My rfa

It's been five months since the last one. I'm not as concerned about the frequency as before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's been 5 months, you might want to correct it on the RfA... it's already been tagged as 4 months.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm??

What was this about? LOL. --eric (mailbox) 07:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I had written an oppose, but it took me so long that I figured I probably would get edit conflicted, so I cut my oppose. I then saved the edit, and was in fact edit conflicted. So, I simply pasted what I had cut and saved. THEN I realized that I hadn't cut the right thing... so I pasted the wrong thing... and well... you know the rest of the story.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(Just one last time)

I figure your right. I generally reply to other's discussion pages since I feel that it is easier that way for the two parties to communicate. If you were to reply to this on your userpage, would I get a message saying you have done so? I have always assumed the answer to this is no. Hence I reply the way I do, (but really, please answer that particular question XD). Reading through your RfA help article, I guess that it would be easier for myself in future situations to do so. Meh, who knows. I might be crazy enough to RfA in the late future. A Prodigy^Talk 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When you comment on a talk page, you need to watch that page for responses. You can then unwatch it after your communication is over. I will always respond on the original discussion, unless that person brings it to my page---at which point I will keep it here. One other thing to note, is that at the top of my talk page I mention that practice. For newbies I might add a {{talkback}} template, but usually I will just assume they are watching my page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Wouldn't things just be much easier if a talkback template auto-generated itself?! A Prodigy^Talk 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would make talk pages unmanageable... easier just to watch a page and term the watch when done.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Houston

Hey, sent you an email, not sure if you got it. I'm flying into Hobby, but staying at a Doubletree up near International. I work in southwest Houston at Hermann Memorial hospital tomorrow... like I said in the email, if you want to get a bite to eat or a beer (my treat, expense account!), let me know. If not, no worries. Tan ǀ 39 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I don't plan to be too wrought up whichever way the RfA goes, but I appreciate all the time you took to scrutinize my contributions. I know it takes not just time but a lot of energy to do that, and I thought you gave a pretty good assessment of my weak points. I don't plan to run right out and start prepping if the RfA fails, but I will try to do more "people" work, either way. Choess (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks, at this point it looks likely to pass... and if it does, I won't be disappointed. You are a good dedicated editor, I just have fairly stringent criteria on who I support. Good luck.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:tally-ho

Hi, Ballonman. Thank you for your message. I will put the tally in the Summary. And this is the first time we are talking! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I always find it nice to be able to see the tally when people have made those edits.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for the message. And Balloonman, I appreciate that you broke from your usual practice in commenting at my RfA. I am impressed with how much time you often spend in reviewing candidates, and your remarks meant a lot to me. Thanks. P.S. I got a lot of beat-the-nom support! :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually, because of you, thinking about changing my practice of not commenting at "foregone conclusion RfA's". Since I generally only comment at new RfA's or contentious ones, it means that my support/oppose ratio will be jilted because I won't be !voting on some exceptional candidates such as yourself. The top candidates, who get a lot of supports early and quickly, often don't get reviewed by me. Thus, I tend to review more unknowns or questionable candidates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very valuable to the community that you focus your efforts on candidates who require some close scrunity. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

S.Steel

See [2] — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cute---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

I'm Spartacus!/archive 9, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Moni3

I added my co-nom, but also left some queries for you at User talk:Moni3. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated and responded on her page.

Remember to nom-vote in this one... :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will... but I like to make my candidates as strong as possible, and we all know that beat the nom supports are the strongest type of support!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I want to ask a question on Moni3's RfA, but I don't want to screw up the protocol. My question is this: "In the following situation, how do you react: User:Ottava_Rima is a known content contributor who has created many important DYK and worked on many important articles but also has a massive block log for edit warring and tendentious editing. Right now, he is currently in a dispute between another user and they are arguing with each other over the topic tendentiously and causing problems on talk pages. How do you intervene? a) ignore their conduct and let it resolve itself, b) warn the user that their conduct is out of control and detrimental to the project, c) block the user for (insert duration here) time, d) same as c but make a mention of it on ANI, or e) fill in your own answer." Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are free to ask any questions you want... simply post it up there. I know that the two of you know each other, which might create a conflict of interest depending on your past. If I'm not mistaken, she took part in an ANI discussion concerning you? But I don't remember the particulars. Depending on your history with her, you might want to make it a more generic question.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, because I think an admin might need to make a difficult decision. And out of the 6 main ANI discussions that involved me, I think half of the active community has taken part. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I was involved in at least one...but by the time I got involved, it was a done issue.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Moni directly. I thought it would be more reasonable that way. I don't want to discuss her response or argue it out. I just think the answer would shine light into her idea on how to handle a situation using admin tools that hasn't yet been made clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny

[3][4] naerii 14:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

one was creative and the other was rude... plus the attacks are becoming more frequent, yet again.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hi Balloonman, nice to see your not semi-retired anymore... so I came to ask you if you could kindly make review of me. It's been about a month since I asked you to admin coach me if I recall. If you can't do the review, I wouldn't mind at all. If you can, do take your time, there's absolutely no rush. These days, my time is limited as I have things to do in real life, having me contributing to 3 different Wikimedia projects, one where I am an administrator at now. Many thanks, RyRy (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Scetoaux's RfA

{{Talkback|WBOSITG|Scetoaux's RfA}} weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA input

Hey there, in response to your concern that you were worried that I had something that would require you to change your position -- if you have not noticed, I have a very distinctive approach to the RfA input. For Neutral votes, I commend the nominee's enthusiasm to assist the project (I have to say something positive). For the Oppose vote, as in this case, I state clearly why I feel that way I do and leave it at that -- no surprises up my sleeve and no attempts to sway people to see things my way. For Support, I attempt (though I probably don't succeed) in bringing some humour to the proceedings, if only to point out the monotony of repeating "Support, great candidate!" umpteen times. Please be aware that I take absolutely no pleasure in voting "Oppose," and I think I've only voted that way only five or six times since I've been part of this process. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually 8 times which is why when I saw you opposing, I had to find out why... An oppose from you is rare, thus, when you oppose, I do pay attention.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very scary -- that is the second time this week someone cited something I wrote in the RfA forums. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Get used to it... as you gain a reputation at RfA and make coherent comments people may cite you more often.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The only possible advice I could give to the RfA forums is "loosen up." That's why I throw in all of those weird "oh, wrong queue" jokes in the support column and commend people when I go neutral -- let's try to be pleasant and have fun, because when it is not fun then it should be time to shut things down. And opposing votes...I so hate going that route, it really leaves me feeling lousy. Oh well, enough of this -- I have to clean the dinner dishes. Later! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Post-script I just checked in and saw what transpired in RyRy's RfA. I am genuinely sorry to see the Swift Boating of RyRy -- if the discussion was still open, I would've jumped in this morning for his defense. I mean, really, complaining about the number of edits on his Barnstar page -- maybe it was high because people kept thanking him and praising him for being helpful, productive and a positive influence? (I actually read every Barnstar and smiley face he got -- wow!) And getting lectures on copyright violations by someone whose one and only literary contribution to the project is a snotty essay designed solely to make fun of people? The word for the day is "emetic." Thanks for listening...now I have to clear the breakfast dishes (you'd think I spent my life at the kitchen sink, no?). Ecoleetage (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have seen it coming... I remember now why I wasn't willing to nom him a month ago when I said that he was ready... it was because I wasn't sure he would pass the RfA because of his Award Center/MySpace days. I overlooked that aspect when I nomed him this time because I think he's overcome those faults, but I should have realized that more time needed to pass. While passing an RfA is entirely up to the candidate, a failed RfA is shared (IMHO) on the shoulders of the person who made the nom. The nominator should know better.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It ain't your fault, Mr. B-Man. I put the blame it on the haters who have this Javert-worthy obsession of pinning eternal guilt on reformed people. I put the blame on the jaded and sour souls who imagine that every innocent statement is pregnant with hidden agendas. I put the blame on the puerile folks who throw insults like it was New Year's confetti. You guys are not failures in my book. And if RyRy doesn't have buttons now, he still has his maturity and intelligence and sincerity -- and that's more important in the overall scheme of things. And so we beat on... Ecoleetage (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's up to the nom, particularly one who is involved with the process, to know the way in which the wind is blowing and to ensure that the candidate should pass before noming them. I thought he was gonna pass, but in hindsight I realize I should have known better.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Retired?

Just wondering whether the semi-retired banner still applicable to you .. Have a nice day -- Tinu Cherian - 10:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. Don't go, we all love your rfa work! ;) --Cameron* 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite all of us. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope it doesn't. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MF, you make me laugh ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings ! I know you can never be away from WP :) . I really appreciate and value most of your RFA norm , mainly because you expose yourself both the merits and demerits of the candidate ( unlike most noms) , leaving us less to dig and research about him . People may accuse you of RFA cabalism , but there are lots of people who value your noms. Keep up the good work ! and please do consider to remove the 'semi-retired' banner too . Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 07:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit?

Regarding this, I presume you meant shouldn't?  Frank  |  talk  19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Should have noted here... I fixed it. thanks

Hey you

If you're ever in Australia, you're invited to dinner :-) (No Christmas, though :P). —Giggy 07:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really want to come for Christmas Dinner, I was thinking more Thanksgiving... but didn't know if you Aussies celebrated Thanksgiving... and even if you did, it probably isn't the same---kind of like how the Canadians have their own version of Thanksgiving. Wrong day, no Indians/pilgrims, no turkeys... so moved on from there.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question

at the RfA is very thoughtful and diplomatic. Kudos to you. HG | Talk 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, it isn't fair if her RfA fails because of her nom... which is what is (in part) happening. I would probably still be defending her, if Majorly had acted in a more civilized manner. Unfortunately, I had a negative impression of Majorly from some previous incidents with him, and his actions here pushed me to the other camp.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know (or want to know) the history, but you deserve credit for making an effort to compensate and give her a fair hearing. Personally, I'm not persuaded by arguments that she should be opposed because of her relation/response/etc with Majorly. In my view, it is quite challenging to navigate the RFA and such a relationship w/nom properly, and the ability to do so is generally not required of an admin. Take care, HG | Talk 21:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Round 2 (Majorly). Your 2nd version is too long IMO. The crux should be concise, eh? Cheers, HG | Talk 14:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I shortened it some, but I want him to see how his actions are perceived... I don't think he believes that his actions actually hurt Jamie's RfA... I personally think she might have passed if he had remained quiet.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I recently addressed this point on her RfA Talk page. If you AGF the !voters, eg SandyGeorgia, you'll see rather broad opposition for reasons unrelated to age. Ciao, HG | Talk 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are definite reasons. I didn't change my vote because of Age or because of Majorly, but Majorly's behavior sparked me to look closer. Likewise, I think others, who might have given her a broader berth looked closer because of his antics.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Looking closely is good. So this suggests that he served a helpful purpose, just did it in an annoying way, eh? yours truly, HG | Talk 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually I am one of the more thorough reviewers at RfA. Some times I get lazy and only do a cursory review, in which case I vote "weak support." But this time his behavior, and my own reservations about him, got me to look closer.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good for you. Btw, I sent you an email. Take care, HG | Talk 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, especially after my endorsement under Friday's comment!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hola

In the grand tradition of waylaying complete strangers and trying to make their days a bit better: I have gathered a nice handful of quotes on User:Kizor and should now redesign the page to accomodate it. (And because its code dates from 2004, but that's a side point.) Before I do I'm interested in feedback, so would you mind telling me if you found any of the entries to be insightful or useful? Thanks. :-) -Kizor 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

just a note to say

...two or three things, actually:

1. Hope there's no hard feelings between us.
2. What's that semi-retired thing on your user page?
3. Aside from yourself, who are the best admin coaches? Where can I find a clearinghouse of related info? etc.

• later Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 13:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I am at a complete loss, what did you do that there might be hard feelings between us? Hmmm, am I going to have to go in search of something? I forgot that I had the semi-retired on the user page... I had semi retired until about a week ago, but if you look at my edits, it didn't really take... take a look at /coaching results and it will give you the success/failures of admin coachess this past year. I've heard good things about Durova's coaching, but haven't looked at it personally. Rlvese has had a solid record in the area. Nishkid has had some stumbles when it comes to RfA's, but I think his failures were a) rushing candidates and b) bad timing---his candidates came to RfA at the height of the "anti-coaching fad." Firsfron was my coach, and I liked what he did. There are others, but those are the one's that I am familiar with. As for information, take a look at my user page. There is some stuff there that isn't on the Admin Coaching page. What I want to do is create a guide for coaching. Coaching SHOULD NOT be about setting tasks and answering questions. The questions are a necessary evil of coaching, but I hate coaches who think the role of coaching is to send the candidate to do several specific task "Go install Friendly and welcome 20 people." Now "Go and comment on 2 FACs". That's bunk and it can be disruptive when the person doesn't learn enough to be constructive in an area. It is also indicative of the worst of what coaching can be. Coaching also isn't a quick fix... I believe coaching should be for 1-3 months. Anything (planned for) more than 3 months (as a general rule) is more accurately called adoption. Anything less than a month is polishing a resume. Now, I have to go find why I should be mad at ya ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow=up: I'm at a complete loss, unless you sent me some email, let me check, nope no email... I have no idea of why we might have hard feelings. The closest thing I could see, would be this edit and that doesn't offend me at all.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK help

Hi there. I'm not sure if you are on wikipedia now or not but if you are the DYK mainpage needs to be updated. we are currently suffering from a major backlog so prompt turnovers are really needed right now. Thanks for any help you can give.Nrswanson (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm online, but unfortunately, I was just logging off... and am litterally running out the door... sorry.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

Hey Balloonman, just looking at your user page and I noticed that you have no current coachees? Is this for any particular reason, or would it be okay for me to ask you kindly for coaching? Hope all is well :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it matters. I forgot that I've previously asked Malinaccier and I'm on his waiting list. Thanks anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question, the reason why I have no current coachees is because I had gone into semi-retirement... that has failed... and I am thinking about resuming my coaching... but I'm debating resuming coaching or trying to develop some guidance on how to coach. IMHO, too many coaches don't know how to coach and have given the program a black eye.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, there are several coaches who don't do is properly but I do think there are several out there who do it very well indeed. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi there. I noticed you were online. I was wondering when you think we can start admin coaching. Though, if the above still applies--that you won't be coaching because you are semi-retired--then I won't mind really. :) Thanks, RyRy (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL at the exact same time that RyRy made this post, I posted on his page that I hadn't forgotten about him! That's too funny---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wells

Hi Balloonman, in my mind a well-poisoning is something like an accusation that is false but also cannot be disproven. What happened at DHMO3 isn't really that sort of situation at all. The situation I had in mind was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68. Cla68's RFA was passing unanimously when SlimVirgin falsely insinuated Cla was a sockpuppet for a banned user. The RFA was set to close in three hours. Not content to malign a good editor with what are now known to be lies, she also lobbied the bureaucrats for the RFA to be extended for 24 hours. Stunningly, a bureaucrat agreed to be party to this abuse of process. Misled by misinformation, many users (some names that are not surprising, including Mantanmoreland who ironically was banned for sockpuppetry) showed up and opposed in the next 24 hours -- thus the only RFA to have 100 percent support after 165 hours and still fail. --JayHenry (t) 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering... thanks for the info. I was unaware of that incident. That's a scenario, where I think the crat should IAR. After the allegation was proven false, to promote anyways.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA/Admin coaching

Hi Balloonman, I thank you for the comments and your offer – as much as you seem to be a good coach, I wouldn't accept starting an admin coaching program. For my own personal stand, I don't want to go in that direction. I'd rather just take the time to gain experience and have some casual mentoring with somebody experienced to talk with. (Mailer mentioned this kind of thing yesterday, but I'm open to others too). I appreciate that you've supported me as a future potential throughout this. I wanted to mention that I never actually answered your question #14 (although I'll might add something), because I couldn't find this one of the cases I was thinking of, or even very many examples for that matter. It's true, I haven't been in many situations like you were mentioning to prove judgment with trustworthy consensus and interpersonal skills. And that kind of experience will just have to come over time and being more involved with debates and discussions. Feel free to drop me a message if you've got something to say. :-) Jamie^☆S93 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem... I do believe that you have at the core what it takes to be a good admin. And the core is the one thing that can't be taught/trained. Either you have the makings for a good admin or your don't. I think you do. Anyways, I do look forward to your future nomination... hopefully, I'll be able to support it---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pot noms

You need to update your potential nom's section. Moni3 is already an admin. Cheers. Infact, I think a few of them have become admins now. Maybe I don't understand what your list is about. — Realist² 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it hasn't been updated in a while...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, PeterSymonds, a user you nominated who became an admin, is not an admin anymore. He was recently desysopped. -- RyRy (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem upset or sad in your reply Balloonman ? — Realist² 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A little upset that I haven't kept up with it... I don't have RyRy on there yet either :( Damn PeterSymonds, I knew he wasn't a sysop anymore... I just forgot that I was the one who nom'd him. Now that should make me sad. :(---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was gutted when I saw he was retired, then found out what happened. He was very nice and helpful to me, hope he returns. — Realist² 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)