Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Balloonman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Balloonman

Final (67/3/4); Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman (talk · contribs) - It is my honor to co-nominate Balloonman for administrator. Balloonman, a heavy contributor to Wikipedia's Poker pages, has been a regular contributor to Wikipedia for over ten months. He's worked a lot in WP:DYK and WP:GAR, and has 5,000 good edits to his name. Balloonman can keep cool under pressure, even when the subject of personal attacks. His ability to stay civil in such situations is impressive. He's knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies, he is intelligent, and (most importantly, in my opinion) he has shown empathy toward other editors even during edit disputes. He has exhibited a need for the tools during our work together. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination - I lured the real-life Balloonman into becomeing a Wikipedian, and over the last months have urged him gently to consider running for adminship. He declined until this month, when he found he had an increasing use for the mop. Balloonman is a steady character and I am absolutely confident he will never misuse the tools. Firsfron and I have made sure he has a good understanding of all of them, even those he doesn't initially plan to use. As for his contribs, he has created many articles in diverse subjects, and almost single-handedly brought one to FA status. He is excellent at working collaboratively with other users, and I am amazed that he is never patronizing or impatient, let alone uncivil, even with inexperienced users causing him problems. --Ginkgo100talk 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say never. I can think of one person with whom, I completely misread. But he was the exception.Balloonman 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I acceptBalloonman 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are a couple of reasons why I am interested in becoming an Admin. My wife, an admin, is tired of handling the issues that I bring to her attention. She's been asking me for months to become an admin, but I've been telling her no. So, why am I interested now?
There are a couple of reasons. First, I have fallen in love with DYK and would love to become more involved there---especially the admin activities. Second, I enjoy AFD's. I tend to contribute on AFD's a few times a month. But I don't only want the Admin tools for AFD, I want to get involved with DRV. I looked at DRV a few weeks ago, and thought "This might be something that I would be interested in doing." Unfortunately, many DRV's are on deleted articles. In order to voice one's opinion there, being able to review a deleted article would be beneficial. Third, while I am not a vandal fighter, I have over a 150 pages on my watchlist. When somebody vandalizes one of those pages, I will generally look the editors other edits to see what else they've edited. This may mean that I may revert up to 10-30 pages of vandalism/spam for a given editor. Having the tools for vandal fighting would be nice (but of lesser concern.)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have been the primary editor of an FA, but I don't think that's my best contribution to Wikipedia. I've taken more pride in being an advocate for NPOV and smaller edits lately than I do the FA. Part of the reason is because I am not convinced that the article that became an FA should have passed. I thought it was going to fail its FAC. Also, when I was working on the FA, it was pretty much me and a few other people. I wasn't part of the larger wiki community. I like the smaller things more because I'm more involved with the larger community and feel like I now know enough now to be helpful. I completely redid the WP:POKER page, have contributed to discussions on GA/R rules/procedures, instituted some discussion on DYK rules, and helped some less experienced editors out. These contributions are more meaningful to me that the GA/FA articles I've written... because they are community activities. (You probably won't see me doing much new pages patrol or recent vandalism patrol because they are activities individual perform on their own.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The Ugly: When I first started on Wikipedia, I created a category and discovered a similarly titled category (one was plural the other wasn't). When I went to the Category page, there was a CFD with a push to have the creator of said category blocked. Thinking the threatened block applied to me, as I had just created the same category, I panicked and contacted everybody I knew for help. Thus, I violated WP:CANVASS. The category survived, but I regretted how the CFD evolved. IMHO, the merits of the CAT are strong enough that it didn't need the artificial help; and my soliciting help actually hurt the CFD's chances and made me look bad. Definitely a growing point in my wikification. Since then I have been in several discussions where a number of editors have contacted me to praise me for my demeanor and calmness in discussing the issue---despite some ad hominem attacks. Two of the awards that I have received were for maintaining my cool when others were tryin to make it personal.
For example, I recently nominated an article for deletion that I had mixed feelings about. I still have mixed feelings about it, so I took it to AFD to get the opinions of others. The author of said page responded very poorly to my nomination and had a few choice words for me. Most notably, "I don't care what you think you anti-semitic troll. Pro-Iran and Anti-Bloomberg." Because of the way I handled this persons attacks, another user wrote, "If you go for admin I will give you my support based on your civility in the face of open hostility alone." Within a week of posting the troll comment above, that same editor gave me a "Barnstar of Peace" with a note, "I have to give you this Barnstar Balloonman for putting up with my incivility a few days ago. I appreciate your help and someday you're going to be a great admin because you are even headed and don't lose your cool." I also had an interesting discussion with an editor on the Holocaust denial GA/R. Again, I suspect that if you talked to that editor early on, he might have had some choice comments for me. In time I think I showed him that my criticism of the article was not personal/political, but rather because I wanted to see the article stronger. I suspect that if he were to comment on my RFA, he'd support it. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I have contacted the three people whom I referenced above to let them know that I mentioned our discussion in my RFA. I am of the opinion that doing so is the right thing to do.)

Optional question from SilkTork

4. When is it appropriate for an admin to go against consensus?
A:This is almost a trick question ;-) Consensus is not really which side gets the most "votes." But weighing the merits of the different positions. The two scenarios where I can see an admin going against consensus the "vote" majority is when 1) there is a strong reason to believe that socks have been used to give the appearance of a consensus and 2) when evaluating the weight of the arguments. Let me give you an example. When I first nominated the article that was promoted to FA, it was getting more "Supports" than "Opposes." SandyGeorgia opposed the promotion of the article. Her reasoning was so strong that I withdrew the nomination even though (at the time) consensus "vote tally" was leaning towards promoting it. The weight/reasoning of her "Oppose" was stronger than the simple "Support" votes. As a rule an admin should excercise extreme caution when going against consensus and should explain his/her reasoning for doing so. This is because while we may use the term "vote" in a number of places, they aren't really votes. They are opinions in support of specific positions and must be weighed according to the strength of the arguments.Balloonman 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Septentrionalis PMAnderson

5. You write me that you think the GA process is broken. In what ways? What can admins do to deal with it and avoid similar problems developing?
Yes, I do believe that the GA process is broken. On June 26, I wrote, "Right now, I have little to no respect for the GA process. All it takes is one person to approve an article to pass/fail it. This means that a lot of junk gets passed and occassionally good articles get failed. Being a GA is meaningless---this may sound surprising because I am an active voice in the GA/R process." There is an old saying that you are only as strong as your weakest link. This means that the GA process is only as strong as the weakest (worst) reviewer. There is no consistency and no process to ensure that the criteria are enforced evenly. Submit the exact same article a dozen times and I guarantee that it will be passed, failed, and placed on hold at least once.
There may be guidelines as to what is a good article, but they don't matter because a lot of people don't read the criteria before evaluating an article. Even if the reviewer did review the criteria, how they interpret them varies greatly. How I understand the criteria differs from how you might interpret the same criteria---thus a lack of consistency. Articles are then taken to GA/R where they are often delisted because of this lack of standards.
I do not participate in the GAC process.[1] I'm involved with the GA/R process. Why? Because I want to help improve the quality of articles on WP. (Which is why I like seeing people working on articles.) I started on FAC, but found that the criteria there was too high for me. I'm not detail oriented/picky enough to be a regular FAC reviewer. I tried Peer Review, but I found it to be boring. There was no sense of community and the articles just weren't good enough. I even looked at A-Class articles on the Military History project. I like the process there, but while I like Military/history articles I find it too monotonous. GA/R is a good place for me to contribute. It is a place where there are standards (which are IMO higher than GAC!) but it isn't the same level of intensity as an FA/A class articles. I only wish there was more consistency between what was expected between a GA and a GA/R article... while I am dubious about articles that passed GA, I do have respect for articles that pass GA/R.
As for the future of GAC, as I've said before, I would love to see GA's go through a more rigorous examination---not quite the same intensity as an FA, but more than one person's opinion. For example, make it take 2 or more people to pass or fail an article. If 2 people agree that it meets/doesn't meet GA standards it is passed/failed. Why do I think this will improve the situation? Because it would help bring credibility to the process---and people might start paying attention to it. Balloonman 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer a different solution to GA's problems; but this is a thoughtful and non-self-righteous response, which is what is at point here. I shall consider how far I wish to change my !vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Pheonix15

6. Could you please give an account of how you deal newcomers, especially newcomers with inappropriate names or ones who immediatly begin vandalising?

In all honesty, this probably not something that you are going to want to hear, but this is an area where I do not have much experience. I do not routinely engage in anti-vandalism or new pages patrol, thus the only time that I generally run across vandalism or inappropriate names is if one of the 150+ pages I have on my watch list gets hit. I know that will probably change if elevated to Admin, so let me answer this in three parts.

First, how do I handle cases that immediately begin vandalising? In the past, if one of my pages was vandalized, I would apply a {{test1|articlename}} template to their page. I would then explore their other edits and revert any other acts of vandalism that they may have performed. If necessary, I would add {{test3|articlename}} or {{test4|articlename}}. I know that there are other templates at WP:TM and WP:TT but the basic test and spam templates are the one's I've generally used. If the vandalism is ongoing I'll take it to WP:AIV or tell my wife (an admin) about it. I'm more likely to take a named account there and one that is currently active than an inactive account or an I.P. that hasn't edited in a while.

Second, how do I handle inappropriate names? Believe it or not, I've never encountered an inappropriate username! Again, that is probably because the activities I enjoy doing are DYK, RFC (recently), GA/R, AFD, and hopefully (in the future) DVR. I'm also interested in possibly getting more involved with WQA. In order to answer this question I would refer to pages such as WP:UAA, WP:UN, WP:RFCN. But in all honesty, if I did run across a questionable username, I would seek guidance from somebody more knowledgable than myself on the appropriate action on a case by case basis until I felt that I knew enough to act on my own. That being said, personally, usernames are free... if it is a new account they can recreate one if necessary. If it is an old account, they can request a name change if necessary.

Third, general question about how I interact with newer users, feel free to check out the discussion I had with a newer Oda Mari. Oda had just reverted a page with the note "RVV." When I looked at the edit (as I was going to check the users other acts of vandalism) the edit appeared to be an incorrected Good Faith edit. (The Wiggles have just recently changed lead singers and the person had replaced the new lead singer's name with the old one---thus, it appeared to be somebody who didn't realize the old singer had left the group.) Here is my initial dialog with her: [2]. Here are her responses [3]Balloonman 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Balloonman before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Errrr.... [4][5][6] were you intending to thank everybody when they comment in support? Most people wait to send out a message at the end (or better yet just put a note on their user page). Sorry, I know it's petty but it is a bit um, odd I guess. Pedro |  Chat  15:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I can wait if that's what is expected. I didn't think it would really matter.Balloonman 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter; just that it's hard work for you :) ~ Riana ⁂ 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Riana summs it up nicely. It's no big issue, just struck me as odd when I strated reviewing your contribs! Pedro |  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'll hold off on this for now. I didn't think about the fact that if I thanked everybody for their support, that it would make it more difficult for people reviewing the nom. Thanks.Balloonman 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems smart to me. Less work if you thank people as the votes come in rather than going through them all at once at the end. Lara♥Love 03:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Another benefit to waiting until the RfA is finished is that you can't be pegged for canvassing a closed RfA. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Beat the nom - I've had quite a bit of interaction with Balloonman on the GA/R process. Good editor. Lara♥Love 15:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. He isn't already a sysop? I thought he was, actually. Good luck, guy who apparently hasn't picked up his mop yet. --Lucid 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Third beat the nom this is user will make a quality sysop. New England Review Me! 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support as co-nom -- but you can still beat Firsfron. --Ginkgo100talk 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Seems like an ideal candidate. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 15:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Seems qualified. Majoreditor 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support He handled my incivility like admins should and he has a quite an impressive edit history.--Southern Texas 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support His grace under fire was very impressive, and demonstrated that he has a level head. That, combined with his experience, will make him an excellent admin. JCO312 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. I see no problems. No evidence provided (so far) in oppose section. WaltonOne 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support fine user from what I can see here. Acalamari 17:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. (edit-conflicted) Support per noms. Wonderful editor. PeaceNT 17:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. I've seen him around, and I think he has the right attitude for adminship. No indication that he would abuse the tools. Coemgenus 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Nothing to complain about! Politics rule 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Notwithstanding that Balloonman has been an excellent editor who I have worked with in articles, I have also observe the uses of a calm civil demeanor from an editor that uses thoughtful logical judgment in dealing with people and issues, he is not somebody that I believe would abuse administrator privileges.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Is a good user to become an admin. -Lemonflash(chat) 22:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Great user; will be a great admin. If this edit is worth an oppose, I think we'd have exactly zero admins on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Holy shatmongers (pardon my...um... language?), since when did RfA become all about attempting to find a single flaw to discredit the entire user's nomination? Look, this isn't about perfection, its about quality users who are willing to take on more responsibility to help Wikipedia. And this user is a fine example of a quality user. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I see nothing substantive in the opposes and see I plenty of positives for this user. His civility is admirable. If there are substantive issues raised I will re-evaluate.--JodyB yak, yak, yak 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. No issues that are important enough to oppose or even neutral - A fantastic user, and having people disagree with you or believe you did something wrong is all a part of being an admin :-) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. There is little to oppose to and I find few flaws. Marlith T/C 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Track is good.No reasons for any concern. Harlowraman 01:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Well-rounded user with plenty of edits. ~ Infrangible 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Terrific editor. Great attitude that is key for this editor, as well as communicating with other editors. Flyer22 05:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support This editor is very frank and does remain in a diplomatic mode if things are apparent [7]. We need such people as Admins. BalanceRestored 09:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support after reviewing the rest of his contributions to AfD, I see that plain !votes are an exception, and I'm glad to support. Trustworthy candidate. Melsaran 10:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Solid contributions to article building. A few slightly sub-par AfD contributions don't seem sufficient to oppose. Espresso Addict 11:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Excellent demeanor and well thought out responses to oppose concerns; I believe he would handle the tools well. Shell babelfish 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - I see no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. I wish him the best. - Philippe | Talk 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - In my interactions he has been thorough, rational and knowledgeable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. An excellent contributor and should be an asset to the project as an administrator. Cla68 12:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Smart, thoughtful, independent but not maverick editor with wide-ranging interests and no hobby-horses.--G-Dett 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support—no major problems here. AfD is more of a philosophical thing, and with DRV, it's not an issue. — Deckiller 02:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support, looks good. umdrums 07:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support There are no major reasons to oppose this user. Good luck.--†Sir James Paul† 09:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  37. Weak support a good editor but weak support because of my newcomer question
    Full support Forget it, He's a brilliant editor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pheonix15 (talk • contribs).
  38. Support Helpful polite editor. Sophia 12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support - Good experience acquired, including Wikipedia-space, which is good. :-) The answers given to the questions also portray intelligence and knowledge when it comes to working with Wikipedia, so yes, a good candidate. Lradrama 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Military brat was one of the best FAs I've ever seen. DYK needs the help too. I agree that the occasional single word "delete" votes aren't very helpful, but otherwise all looks great. --JayHenry 18:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Have had a good trawl through this user's edit history and he looks a goodie. I trust him. --Dweller 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Experience with enough processes to know what's going on, even if he hasn't covered all areas. "I would seek guidance from somebody more knowledgable than myself on the appropriate action on a case by case basis until I felt that I knew enough to act on my own." This + civil demeanor = he knows how to handle the mop. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Seems experienced, polite and reasonable.--NeoNerd 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - everything looks to be fine. Reasonable answers to the questions, not too BITEy from recent edits. Should be ok - Alison ☺ 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I don't see anything I'd really object to so far from your contributions.--SefringleTalk 04:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support, Checks all boxes. Dfrg.msc 07:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Even the worst edits cited by the opposition look reasonable to me. I believe user has good deletion substance, if not style, and would gladly hand him the mop. Ginkgo100 should be chastised for ruining an otherwise blissful life, however. (Kidding.) Cool Hand Luke 07:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I think she should be canonized for putting up with me... I mean, if that isn't a miracle, then I don't know what would be. And like they said, behind every great man there's a great woman-in my case it's true.Balloonman 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. And I agree with him about the GA process being broken (personally, I think we'd be better off without it, and all article reviewing other than FAC). Neil ム 09:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know if that is the solution PMAnderson was looking for, but here is why *I* don't like it. I'm into martial arts. In most martial art systems in the west, we do not go straight from White to Black Belt, but have different stages. The reason why is because those different reward levels have been shown to keep people interested and motivated in the system. It is instant gratification. It is also a means to enable people to set goals and have people evaluate articles along the way. Personally, I don't think I'll ever go for FAC again (I'm not that detailed oriented). If that was the only recognition for articles, it would take away some of my motivation for improving articles.Balloonman 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support: This is the first RfA I have contributed to, but since running across Balloonman (during a lively debate on the GAR for Holocaust Denial) I have been consistently impressed with his readiness to offer help, his conscientious and civil approach to editing, and his dedication to making Wikipedia the best it can be. EyeSereneTALK 11:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. I liked the answers to the admin coaching questions -- they show a good understanding of policy. Also, he was able to defuse a tense situation with a rather upset editor. Finally, I'm sure that Mrs. Balloonman (Balloonwoman?) will keep him in line if he does something wrong.  :) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support I've seen him around GA/R alot, he doesn't seem like he'd be unreliable as an admin. Some of the oppose votes seem to be focusing on his opinions concerning how he recommends to delete an article or what makes an article a GA or not in certain instances, but I don't see what any of that has to do with being an administrator, no part of the GA process requires frequent administrator action, and not giving explanations for AfD things doesn't seem to be bad, indeed, i've seen many AfD decisions closed with just "Delete" or something at the top by the closing admin. Homestarmy 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Balloonman will do his best to become a good admin, that's all anyone can ask.Rlevse 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - Soild contributor and I don't see any red flags here.--Bryson 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  54. Weak Support Very good editor but a few things missing (not enough for an oppose or neutral). You could be using edit summaries more often and you should be participating in WP:RFPP once in a while (admins protect articles because of heavy vandalism). Other then that, you are ready for the mop.--PrestonH 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    I've been an admin for nearly a year and I can't remember the last time I looked at WP:RFPP. --Ginkgo100talk 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    I personally think that admins need to be flexible in most (if not all parts) in admin stuff. I recommend he/she should go to WP:RFPP once every week or two. This is however solely my opinion on whatever I trust this user with the tools or not (who knows, he might become a fantastic admin).--PrestonH 04:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. I especially like the answers to the questions. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 03:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support- Absolutly, the answers and editing skills are more then enough for this member to be made admin. I truly hope you achieve this goal! Deliciously Saucy 10:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  57. Restraint and keeping are things expected a sysop. If he has this he is worthy in my opinion. VoltronForce 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support I'm sure I could find something I disagree with you about, or mistake you've made, but then, reasonable people can disagree over many things, and as a whole, I consider you a responsible enough editor that I don't object to you being an admin. I just hope nobody pokes you with any needles. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support - excellent - very nice to see an editor ck lostsword•T•C 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    (Clarifying per a request on my talk page). By editor, I mean 'one who contributes to articles'. I often find it refreshing to see a user who contributes content to articles, rather than clearcut antivandalism (though that sort of admin is also necessary), and with your FA and multiple DYK's, along with your edits to promote NPOV, I believe that you fulfil this. It demonstrates to me that you really need the tools for in a variety of tasks. As you say, '[you] want to help improve the quality of articles in Wikipedia', and this recognition of the goal of the project is important in an admin. ck lostsword•T•C 09:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Per the noms and his answers. Dureo 02:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. My only concern was in regard to the AfD comments highlighted by Corpx. However, after reading the candidate's explanation and browsing through a number of his other AfD comments, I'm left with a positive impression. — Black Falcon (Talk) 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. I've mostly encountered him at DYK, where he is helpful. I thought the answers to the questions were good. I agree that using AFD instead of RM is a bit odd and unexplained delete votes are not useful, but I don't see anything actually counterproductive and I think he'll use tools the judiciously. Rigadoun (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support Seems good and well qualified. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Some concern raised about AFD I agree with, but overall don't believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support It has been a pleasure to work with Balloonman at GA/R. I particularly admire his zeal for NPOV, even when he is sympathetic to the point of view. I'm not surprised that there is overwhelming consensus for his adminship. Geometry guy 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    honestly, I expected more opposes, but I'm happy to be proven wrongBalloonman 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support I am preparing some balloons to celebrate your adminship ceremony. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    260's, helium, or hot air?Balloonman 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Having looked at the answers this user has given above, it strikes me that he is certainly admin material. Looking at the results so far, I can;t see this failing ;) TheIslander 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I was disappointed with some edits in candidates history. I will not say which ones, because the last time I did that, an edit war erupted over them that is still going on to this day. ←BenB4 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Can you be at least a little more specific? "Some edits" isn't enough information to help people discuss the issue. --Ginkgo100talk 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    True, but I'm not willing to have a horde of defenders swoop down in persistent approval of what I see as a problem again. If that means the closer discounts my vote, so be it. ←BenB4 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Ideally, RfAs aren't just instances of the community saying that they like or dislike a candidate; they are opportunities for self-improvement. Even in successful RfAs, some dissenting editors (and even some of the supporting ones) may find areas in which the person up for adminship can improve their editing. Saying that there are problems and then not elaborating on them is problematic; not so much for the "your !vote may be discounted" aspect, but more because it leaves Balloonman with nothing to work with. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose I will be specific. A lot of the Afd comments are unexplained deletes; this is strongly recommended against, for reasons which an admin should understand. In addition, this edit on GAR is appalling; delisting because of a lack of the lack of access dates is the sort of mindless pettiness which GA encourages. A responsible editor who considered this important would have turned to and accessed the links; there were only a dozen without the tag. I suppose there must be some place where the born nags can exercise their art; but they are not temperamentally suited to adminship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Response The appalling edit that I made is: Conditional keep looks as if there is a sincere effort to fix the deficeincy... one comment, you do need to add "accessed on" dates to the online references. I was voting to keep, not delete the article in question because the editor was making an effort to clean up that and other concerns. If you look at my GAR comments they are generally dealing with the prose/POV of the article, not the footnotes which I generally don't notice. If this was an issue that I tended to nag people on, you would think that I would not have sent an article for GAC less than a week earlier with the exact same issue? Yes, I did notice it here, perhaps because I had just finished adding them within the previous 24 hours to get a GAC to pass with these edits here, here, here, here, and here. So it was something that I knew the GAC world was paying close attention to.Balloonman 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see much effective difference between conditional keep and delist because. But if you will add some of your GA reviews, I will look at them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think this oppose stinks of I don't like you personally and "I don't like the forums you've worked in", with comments like " mindless pettiness which GA encourages" and "born nags". An RFA isn't a free opportunity to take potshots at people and grumble. If you can't be civil it's doubtful any legit concerns you havee will be taken seriously. VanTucky (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to dig around for a bunch of GA/R's that you apparently don't appear to respect. Instead, I'll point to two posts where I shared my GA/R philosophy. First, I tend to be more on the side of 'keeping' an article if the article has editors who are motivated to cleaning it up/fixing it. So my vote is really on the potential of the article---there are sections that are not up to snuff but on the whole I think it is fine. [...] Some of the other editors tend to be more of a delisters---the lack of citations in significant sections will cause them to vote to delist. Some use, what IMHO, is too harsh of a standard for GA's---I don't personally believe that an article has to be FA quality to be GA. And again, I tend to be a keeper. If I see somebody willing to work on an article to bring it up to GA status, then I am more likely to keep a poorer quality article that is being worked on than a marginal one where nobody cares. In both cases you'll notice that if somebody cares enough to work on an article, that plays a huge role in how I vote. I'm involved with GA/R not to get articles delisted, but rather to encourage other editors to improve their articles. Which is why I opposed speedy delisting.Balloonman 06:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    (←) Note that PMAnderson has serious incivility issues, particularly toward those who work in the GA/R process. This is not the first time he has opposed the RfA of a WikiProject Good articles participant for ridiculous reasons. A prime example from a tragically failed RfA is seen here. This editor has caused much drama in the GA/R project, sending many regulars on a wikibreak from it for a few weeks. Because of his embittered disdain for the GA/R project and those who participate in it, his judgment cannot be trusted. Examples of disrespect and trolling in GA/R: 1, 2, and 3. Reviewing his talk page can be quite revealing as well. Lara♥Love 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    I share the widely held opinion that GA is a broken process; two of the hallmarks of bad process are the formation of an in-group, and the consequent assumption of the "bad faith or stupidity of non-regulars". LaraLove's defensiveness and personal attacks illustrate this perfectly; it is bad training for adminship. Some GA regulars are above the domineering pettiness this encourages; I would welcome evidence that Balloonman is one of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    PMAnderson, you don't even know what you're talking about. GA/R never has enough participation to be an "in-group" and not include "non-regulars". We didn't welcome you because your edits were in bad faith. You are ignorant to the GA project and what's going on with it. It's not a personal attack. It's a matter of your uninformed comments opposing those you don't like solely because of their participation in a project that you neither like, appreciate or understand. Lara♥Love 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    I note that LaraLove has not yet corrected her blunder above. I do have reasons for doubting that some GAR regulars know anything about English, article content — or civility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? You make no sense. A comparison of my talk page to yours will easily determine who has civility issues and who does not. Lara♥Love 05:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    I see that LaraLove remains ignorant of basic English; the conversation above demonstrates her civility. In both respects, she is all too typical of WP:GA/R; there are exceptions, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    I have some sympathy with the concerns Septentrionalis has about the GA/R process, and I believe his comments are made in good faith. However, in this case, the comments are misapplied and somewhat out of date. After the "drama" referred to above, I spent some time at GA/R. My contribution was appreciated and I soon became a well-respected regular. I also encouraged several improvements in the process. Whether GA/R ever was an in-group of judgemental and picky delisters, I cannot say, but it certainly isn't any more. Picky or vote-only comments carry no weight now.
    The comments are particularly misapplied concerning Balloonman, who has, in my experience, been consistently a serious and conscientious reviewer who wants to improve articles not judge and delist, a reviewer who frequently helps to fix issues rather than complain about them. The comments about LaraLove are also off the mark: I have seen poor English at GA/R myself, but not from Lara, who is another reviewer from the "lets improve the article" school. She regularly copyedits the articles she reviews, and very competantly too. Anyway, enough off-topic stuff; I hope my character witness for Balloonman eases some of Septentrionalis's doubts! ;-) Geometry guy 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm glad to hear of improvement. Congratulations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Delete per this. Matthew 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    I take it you mean Oppose? Or you might be talking about Editors for Deletion. ;-) --Deskana (banana) 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Response Yes, I could have handled the situation a little better, but here was the rationale that I posted, "When I nominated it for deletion, my primary hope was deletion, but I knew that wouldn't happen--thus I conceded that it would pass an AFD and pushed for renaming." And here "But in this case, the individual showed himself to lack civility and this issue has already been hashed to death under Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Personally, I think both articles should be deleted as NPOV, but the precendent (as testified by numerous AFD's on the US article) is to allow these articles with the more POV title of allegations." I did want that article deleted, but conceded the article would pass an AFD too readily.Balloonman 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • At the time, I had forgotten about it. It wasn't until somebody pointed it out in the discussion that I remembered it existed.Balloonman 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per the AfD issues raised, showing an unfamiliarity with admin customs and such. Jmlk17 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral per recent contributions to AFD - Like this, this, this, this, this, when the DRV provided a link to the award, this. Its just the delete votes with no other reasoning that's bothering me, but these should not overshadow all the other contributions the candidate has made on AFDs, so I'm leaning very close to support. Corpx 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Response You'll notice that the majority of the links cited above occur near the end of a list of deletes where there would be very little to add. There are some that don't---and I did miss the link to the award for the pornstar (but would note that my work computer has a firewall that didn't let me see it.) But I would contend that for every time that I simply write a short explanation I write 2 or more longer more detailed ones. Just a few: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16]Balloonman 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    I saw them too, that's why I'm not opposing. Corpx 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    Per Corpx. Plain "delete" !votes without a rationale imply unfamiliarity with Wikipedia customs, and leave me concerned about whether he is able to correctly close XfD debates. Melsaran 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning oppose per the diffs provided by Corpx. I like the contribs that I've seen before this RFA, but these make me pause to wonder if he understands policy well enough. VanTucky (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I think it must have taken quite a bit of digging to find all those "delete" without comment !votes. There's no evidence they are representative. Try looking at these. These are from the most recent block of AfD comments he made right before this RfA. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] --Ginkgo100talk 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, a couple of people have voted neutral or oppose because of a handful of edits, so the question becomes are those edits where I simply voted "delete" indicative of my voting pattern on AFDs or the exception? To answer that question, I have tracked down every AFD "vote" I've made since July 1. There are over a 100 times where I have contributed to an AFD, and a quick look at these edits will demonstrate that they are the exception not the rule.Balloonman 05:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral for now; active support would require more watching of particular edits than I have time for; but I have no objection to the apparent consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - his wife is an admin; together, they could create a cabal! :P No, nothing personal against the editor, just some contributions I don't entirely agree on. If he becomes an admin, I won't complain, but I don't feel right opposing or supporting either way. David Fuchs (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.