Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AniMate

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

AniMate

Nomination

(82/1/3); Originally scheduled to end 23:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate (talk · contribs) – For some while I have been an admirer of this editor's abilities to seek the best for Wikipedia, to draw editors who have conflicting postions towards compromise, to unfailingly pursue resolution rather than escalation. He/She and I have interacted frequently in Balkan-related articles, one of the most troubled Wiki-environments. I have been ceaselessly impressed, and have no doubt that AniMate would be an excellent admin. In addition, he/she has been actively involved in numerous project areas, such as Afd, RfA and so on. All in all, a nom that I am happy to put forward for the benefit of the community. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. AniMate 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm definitely planning on being conservative with my use of the tools starting out, as I don't think the project needs a trigger happy new admin. I'd certainly be more than happy to help out at WP:DRV, especially with users who want articles undeleted and moved to their user space. I'd also help out at some of the lower traffic admin areas like WP:RM. The other day I put up a request in the "Uncontroversial proposals" section, and it took over 15 hours before an administrator acted on it. Instant gratification isn't possible and for the sake of thoroughness isn't desired, but editors deserve to know that someone has acknowledged their request. That's also why I would participate in unblock reviews. I'd definitely let someone know as soon as possible that their request has at least been noticed, but would also take due diligence in investigating the situation before approving or declining a request.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia invariably fall under sourcing, though I am also a content contributor. I'm extremely proud of my work on Nazi human experimentation, which is the hardest article I've ever edited. Because the subject is so depressing I haven't edited it for some time, but when I started it only had 4 inline citations I believe. Since I tackled it, the article has 26 references, most of which I went and found, and has expanded to cover the idea of informed consent previous to the Nazis, as well as the ethics of using the results of their experiments. I'm also proud of Steve Brown (yo-yo player), an article that consisted of one sentence, was put up for deletion, and I was able to expand and source it to the point that all of the deletes were changed to keep. It's a stub about a man in a silly sport, but I'm still very proud of it.
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: Since I began editing other WWII articles centered in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), it seems like all of my time here recently has been stressful. The first real conflict occurred at Magnum Crimen and the most recent is at Template:The Holocaust. Mostly I've tried to mediate, find common ground, and cool tempers. I've found some success with the first two, the second... not so much, though the fact that tempers there cannot be calmed is one of the reasons WP:ARBMAC exists. In many ways most articles related to the Balkans a battleground for a cultural war that cannot be won, and I suppose I've seen myself as an unofficial peace keeping force, trying to get everyone to stop fighting so we can start editing, find the sources we need, and actually write neutral articles.
Additional questions from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
4. When would you block an editor for appearing to transgress Wikipedia:Edit war or WP:3RR? When would you overlook an apparent transgression of these?
A: I'm fairly certain I'd block for edit warring and 3RR when it is an experienced edit warrior who has received at least one warning or has a block log that shows a history of the offending behavior. However, if they're participating on or can be convinced to participate on the article talk page I think a final warning is more appropriate and more helpful.
5. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.
A: I'm reasonably certain that isn't a violation of BLP. Wikipedians are allowed to have personalities. We're allowed to be sarcastic, though we should be markedly more careful when discussing living subjects. The editor is referencing an article on a talk page (from a less than reliable source), and he never actually attributes anything to the subject.
6. Under what circumstances can an individual administrator place editing restrictions on another editor?
A: My understanding is that administrators can place editing restrictions when there is an existing ArbCom decision in place. I mentioned WP:ARBMAC above, which I know has an editing restriction remedy, and I'm fairly certain other cases have resulted in discretionary remedies.
Additional questions from ϢereSpielChequers
7. Dear Animate, I notice from your contributions that sometimes you revert edits without guiding the newbies who made them. Could you give us your thoughts on when you think its not necessary to explain a revert? I'm thinking of scenarios like this and that, (page down)
A:I'm surprised you managed to find two of those, as I'm generally pretty good about welcoming and/or warning new editors who make problematic edits. In my defense, one of those talk pages is deleted and I'm fairly certain that I did have some interaction on their talk page and they're now indef blocked. The other... I'm human and missed it.
Thanks, sorry I hadn't spotted that the talk page had been deleted. ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Terse
8. You mention WP:ARBMAC a couple of times. Given your history of involvement in the Balkan related articles, do you intend to use your admin privileges to block users editing Balkan related articles?
A:Most likely, no. I certainly don't intend to block anyone with who I've interacted with or someone who is editing an article I have edited or is related to an article I have edited. That being said, almost all (if not all) of my edits are related to the Independent State of Croatia during WWII. There are other countries in the region, so I see no reason to recuse myself from them. As I said above, I intend to be extremely conservative in my use of the tools, so I won't be doing much blocking. Also, if I feel someone needs to be blocked per WP:ARBMAC, I think it will likely be easier and less controversial for me to take the case to WP:AE or WP:AN/I.
9. How do you intend to assure wikipedia community that you will follow the rule that admins should avoid conflict of interest. In particular, do you intend to delete Balkan related articles that you mediate to be for deletion, or to ban users whose POV you mediate to be disruptive?
A:How would you like me to assure the community. I personally think accepting a nomination for adminship involves an implied contract that you intend to follow the rules and mores that the community has set out. If you're implying that I should be open to recall, I likely will be, as I don't think ArbCom should be the first and last stop to desysop problematic administrators.
10. Are you aware that admins that are involved in edit wars are not supposed to use their privileges to push their POV in any way - either direct or indirect?
A:Yes.
11. Do you intend to limit your involvement in hot topics, that you obviously personally care about, like Balkan related issues (one of the most heatly disputed issues on wikipedia) to mediating, and restrain from abusing admin privileges to ban people, delete articles, protect articles etc. that are Balkan related? What guarantee are you willing to provide that you will do so?
A:Yes. What guarantees would you like me to give?
Additional questions from Rjecina
12. You are not first of last user which will become administrator and it is from ex-Yugoslavia or it has been very involved with Yugoslav related articles. We are having small custom (not wikipedia rules) that future administrators from Balkan end involvement in Yugoslav related disputes. Are you ready to end your involvement in Croatia related articles after you become administrator.
A: Just to clear something up: I'm not from the Balkans area as both you and User:Terse seem to believe. I started editing articles related to the area as a natural progression from other articles I edited. I can't even trace any family to the region, and believe my only role in Balkans related article is that of a neutral editor. With that in mind, why would the addition of a few more buttons to my account (should this RfA be successful) mean I should stop editing articles I'm interested in? No, I will not be following this "small custom" I've never heard of, but I will also not use the tools to gain any editorial advantage in these or any other articles
13. What is your thinking of user which because of dispute on 1 or 2 article talk pages start never ending stalking [1] of other user ?
A: I think stalking another editor is shameful harassment that is justifiably blockable. I also think that when someone sees questionable or POV contributions from an editor that following their editorial career to ensure that they do not harm the encyclopedia by pushing an agenda is not stalking.
14. You are saying that wikipedia stalking rules are not in force when we are speaking about your friend (user:AlasdairGreen27) which want to ban me [2], but on other side your "enemy" (user:Rjecina)must be blocked because in your thinking his edits are POV pushing [3] ?
A: Do I think stating you are collecting diffs to possibly seek administrative action against someone you perceive to be violating policy is stalking? No. Do I think you are a POV pusher? Yes.
15. I am interested to hear if you have started rewriting of awful (your words) articles about Executed Nazi concentration camp personnel or rewriting Croatian is enough [4] ?
A: No I haven't, so thank you for reminding me. If you look through my contributions you'll notice I haven't been doing most of my edits in areas related to the Holocaust lately. I felt I had to take a break for my own sanity. I consider myself a diverse editor and don't restrict myself to editing in one area. As Wikipedia grows, I find more and more articles I feel I can contribute to positively and as I focus on them, other priorities unfortunately can fall by the wayside.
16. My last question is why have you not started RFC/U against me and only after that become administrator ? You are knowing that there will be problems for both if you try to end your dispute with me after becoming administrator ?
A: Again, I edit in many areas. You simply aren't very high on my list of priorities.
Additional questions from Chaser
17: (I despise angry threads following oppose votes, so I'm making this a question to keep it in the candidate's court, where it belongs.) Given the diff found by A Nobody [5], please read the oppose section here and explain why one should not oppose your candidacy on that basis.
A:You're preaching to the choir about angry threads. I don't think you should oppose based on that because despite "delete and merge" not being possible technically because of GFDL licensing, my rationale behind the !vote was quite strong in my opinion. Besides, I don't currently spend too much time at AfD, and don't really see that changing. In hindsight I should have stated "merge and redirect". I still don't think there was a lot there to save, but when I really think about merging something that's been deleted... I feel pretty thick, since you can't merge something that is no longer there. I won't make that mistake again.


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AniMate before commenting.

Discussion


Support
  1. No concerns from me at all. AniMate is a very nice chap and knows his stuff. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support i add my support to AniMate as an adminship. he is a very able user who not only has skill in working with improving articles but also is polite and always helfpful even in situations where others might be stroppy or annoyed. one quality of his that i presonally found impressive was his work on articles re: obscure people who might be overlooked by many other editors due to a lack of prominence in mainstream television culture. He worked hard on Steve Brown (yo-yo player and preserved it to keep importnat information onto the wiki that might not have been noticed by someone else who wasnt as good at researching and editing as he is. i believe this this good example of hard working and enterprising nature that is valuable in an admin. Smith Jones (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. No problems here, solid contributor and mature editor. To the !vote above - spell check. Use it. Love it. Tan | 39 23:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beat the next person to vote support - Good editor, nice guy, Mr. Muscle. No reason not to support. — neuro(talk) 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Of course. To the above, hmm, possibly the most unoriginal "beat the.." supports I've seen, but good try nonetheless. :D PeterSymonds (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ho Ho Ho! I'm Santa Claus and I need to buy a girdle -- either they're making chimneys smaller these days or I put on some weight since last Christmas. Oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for a candidate who is clearly the perfect holiday gift to all the good little boys and girls of Wikipedia. I actually wanted to co-nominate AniMate, but that's okay -- he's here and that's great. On Dasher, on Dancer, on Prancer, on Jimbo...Jimbo? Hey, what are you doing with my reindeers? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. As Vote #2 said above, AniMate is definitely not stroppy. Keeper ǀ 76 02:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seen the user around, seems like a good natured person. —Ceran [ Falalalala... ] 02:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Positive name I've seen around. MBisanz talk 02:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - It is about time. I will not prattle on about this editors contributions or the benefits of having AniMate as an addition to the admistrative roles, his record speaks for its self. Again, about time. ShoesssS Talk 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Good editor, why not? Matt (Talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as the same as just about everyone else above. You got this in the bag! K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Eusebeus (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Per previous interactions, and per answer to Q4. J.delanoygabsadds 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes - have seen nothing that says "can't be trusted." Donnez le mop d'admin. //roux   06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Excellent contributor. Fully trustworthy Master&Expert (Talk) 07:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I've seen AniMate around and have a positive opinion of him. Trustworthy and would make a great admin. -- Suntag ☼ 07:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Deletion discussions look fine to me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support – I've heard (well, I mean "read") good things about AniMate. I've skimmed his contributions, and I see nothing but positive work. Looks like AniMate could do a good amount of extra things as an administrator to me. Would do just fine as one. – RyanCross (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support as nominator. Will make a fine admin. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per Santa Claus above ;-) SoWhy 09:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. While I would have liked to see more article-writing, the candidate exhibited good mediation skills in dealing with difficult and contentious disputes, and we definitely need more admins with these kinds of skills. Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I've seen you around, I have no concerns. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Quality editor and I have no concerns that he won't be successful.--Iamawesome800 14:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Competent and experienced enough for adminship. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Per contributions, my only concern was addressed by the answer to q7 ϢereSpielChequers 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Hello, I'd like to purchase a high-strength snowblower...sorry, wrong queue. Sam Blab 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support – I have worked around Balkan articles before (especially those that are Kosovo-related) and I must disagree with Terse's oppose. Although I can't elaborate with diffs at this particular moment, due to time constraints, I would encourage people to investigate further before mindlessly "per-ring" that oppose. From what I can recall, AniMate is good editor. Caulde 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' views and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. support thought he was already an admin. A Nobody's oppose is because he disagrees with almost all deletions (that's not failure to WP:AGF, it's a fact with which he might well agree if you ask him. He's one of the most 'notorious' inclusionists after User:Kmweber. We are supposed to give our opinions at AfD and no-one presumably is psychic, we won't always agree with what the future close ends up being. Nor is having a different opinion to the close wrong. If we really were a hive mind that could read each others' minds to determine what consensus is on an article, we wouldn't need to have AfD discussions at all. Sticky Parkin 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't just that the candidate wants to delete, it is that in some of the instances, no reason is provided and it is reassuring from admins when they provide a rationale. In something like this, the candidate just says, "Delete Make a category." Okay, but why? What policy does the article fail as a list that it passes a category? Why is a category better? It isn't simply about wanting to delete it. Don't get me wrong, yes, I am more apt to feel strongly about augmenting our paperless encyclopedia than not, but even I think some articles should be deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoodyRimShot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), for example) and so it takes more than just wanting to delete things for me to oppose. It's also if not more importantly about the how someone argues. We need to know if a discussion that is not unamious is closed one way or the other that a justification for that close is provided. And the only real way to get a sense for how someone thinks about these things is by looking at what they had to say in past discussions. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - I have to admit, I've never heard of the candidate before, but as far as I can tell he'll do just fine with the mop. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've seen this user several times and have been impressed with his edits and demeanor. The ability to keep a cool head in Balkan-related issues is a definite plus. TN‑X-Man 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I have had many interactions with AniMate and seen him "at work" here many times, and find him to be consistently calm, civil, evenhanded and always going out of his way to de-escalate conflicts between others, encourage more collaborative behavior and help/guide/teach new editors both technically and regarding policy and behavior.— TAnthonyTalk 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I warn you to watch your POV when dealing with Balkan articles, but other than that you will make a good admin. Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No reason not to! America69 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support meets my standards. Dlohcierekim 01:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, naturally.... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Can't see why not. Garden. 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. abf /talk to me/ 11:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Opposes are either unsubstantiated allegations, or very borderline questionable but from a long time ago where edit history since then has been rather good. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. —macyes: bot 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Seems to be a good content contributors. He also managed to keep a cool head during all those Yugoslavia related edit wars. So I think he will be a good sysop. Ruslik (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per conduct in this RfA, particularly vis-a-vis the questions - I like it when candidates admit their mistakes - and general decorum / healthy perspective. Townlake (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Read through the Holocaust archives and extremely impressed with the candidate's skills, abilities and calmness (Is that a word? It is now!) Skinny87 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - we need more admins willing to lend a hand for the 'unglamorous' areas such as those identified in your question answers Cynical (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise, but we saw enough of this nonsense during the ArbCom elections. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - a longterm commitment to improving the encyclopedia, reasonable experience in the usual Wikispaces and a calm and constructive approach on some of our most controversial articles. Seems like an excellent candidate to me. Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - The tone of Rjecina's opposition and questioning convinces me that you'll be a good influence in that area of the encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Some of the counterarguments seem to have interesting crusts, but they're rather empty inside. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Three years on the project, solid contributor. Blueboy96 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support - It is nice to see a candidate with solid substantive experience in mainspace. Much rather see that than tens of thousands of vandalism reverts or whatever. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per the candidate's responses to the not-so-helpful questions 12 through 16. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support All my dealings with this editor have been positive and considered.--VS talk 23:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Well beyond net positive. Quite the impressive candidate. DARTH PANDAduel 03:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Samir 06:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support As per track.POV should not be reason to oppose every editor has a POV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support has a very strong commitment to Wikipedia - very positive and skilled user. Ferdinand h2 (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support no dealbreakers noted. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Garion96 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Weak support - The answer to my question above wasn't particularly strong, but I see no other major issues and a lot of positives.--chaser - t 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Happy Christmas Support I see a lot of positives here, and assuming this succeeds and the community agrees, the flag can be your Christmas present from the community! :D Stwalkerster [ talk ] 10:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Suppoort - I could have sworn you were an admin.. But yes, I trust your judgement.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. AniMate does not have a lot of mainspace content contribution. However there are good interactions with other users, and sensible answers to tricky questions above. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support — the mop is no big deal — for those who show clue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak support - I'd like to see some more article work including going through the GA and/or FA process once or twice, but I haven't found that here. Or am I missing something? In which case, I'll strike the "weak". ayematthew ✡ 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Net Positive. AdjustShift (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I trust Animate. rootology (C)(T) 17:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per what's been said. Wizardman 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support per all the above. LittleMountain5 Merry Christmas! 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. No problems here. DiverseMentality 02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Appears to have good judgment in dealing with others, including those in contention. Does not seem be be a member of one of wikipedia's power-welding cliques. Wants to become an admin for the right reasons (taking care of admin tasks) and not just because it would be convenient to have the tools now and then, or to help only in circumscribed areas of interest. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. No concerns from what I have seen. First hand experience in conflictual areas is a big plus. - Ev (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Based on the reviews and work by AniMate, this user is an excellent potential in Administratorship. I support his campaign, and have no worries he will do something negative with being ad administrator.--DocDeel516 discuss 20:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Good user, can be trusted. I don't see anything in the opposes to move me. Chamal talk 01:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong Support Excellent user, he would be trusted with the tools and I wish him luck in the future!--Pookeo9 (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support as to give AniMate the mop as a Christmas present. :-) --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 18:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. See no serious issues. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Block as impersonator — Has nobody else noticed the similarity? Seriously, though, support. —Animum (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose Editor has been involved in many Balkan related edit wars. My concern is that, given the fact that he comes from this area, and that he has his own strong POV there, he might abuse admin privileges to push his POV. In any case, granting him admin privileges will create more problems than it will solve. His promise to block editors in edit wars rises a concern that he will block editors who have different POV in edit wars he is personally involved in. He never addressed this obvious concern of conflict of interest in his answers, and that is quite worrying. On the contrary, he prominently mentiones Balkan related WP:ARBMAC policy in his answers, that he, personally involved in Balkan related edit wars, apparently intends to enforce, rather than leaving it to more disspasionate admins. Terse (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
switching to neutral; the user has partialy answered my concerns, and so I no longer find it suitable to opose his nomination; Terse (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather strange that you turn up after 5 months of inactivity to oppose the candidate. How did you hear about this? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how introducing an Ad hominem circumstantial, helps the discourse of the RfA process. -Seidenstud (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly less serious note, you don't live up to your name ;) — neuro(talk) 13:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terse, these are rather serious accusations, and when such accusations are made, they must be backed up by diffs or other specific evidence that you did not provide. Do you have specific evidence that the candidate engaged in edit warring and/or POV pushing? What are some specific examples of "the many Balkan related edit wars" that you say the candidate has been involved in, and when? And what exactly do you mean by "involved in"? Are you saying that he actually engaged in edit warring? Note that the candidate's block log is clean with no 3RR blocks and no blocks of any other kind. Nsk92 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just looked through Template talk:The Holocaust, and I have to say that AniMate has been very patient, calm and polite there and, IMO, exhibited something close to the patience of a saint in dealing with fairly aggressive POV pushing. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Terse. Leujohn (talk) Switching to Neutral until discussion above ends. Leujohn (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak oppose per these examples: [6] (this "vote" is really a merge and redirect, not a delete), [7] (no argument, i.e. no "why", just a suggestion), [8] (vote inconsistent with close). I like that the candidate has created some articles and received a couple barnstars and has not been blocked, but in deletion discussions in which we both participated, I have to give pause for the above indicated reasons. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those were like, a year ago. — neuro(talk) 16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you are opposing because the candidate voted the other way to how a discussion closed? What's the point of a 'discussion' then? — neuro(talk) 16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because A Nobody is an inclusionist and opposes any delete voters, especially those who don't write huge justifications for their opinions. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now now, let's assume good faith here. — neuro(talk) 17:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's assuming good faith, and also telling it like it is. It's not a smear on A Nobody. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, I oppose delete votes, not arguments. In discussions, I look for explanations and arguments that are consistent with what is made in bold. There are plenty of instances where I think arguing to delete is reasonable as I have done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoodyRimShot, for example, but when I consider someone who might close these sorts of discussions, I want to be sure that when they consider an article's merits that have reasoning backing up their stances and I cannot gauge any understanding of interpretation of our inclusion criteria when in the second instance above there is just a vote and suggestion with no rationale or in the first case what looks more like justification for merging and yet the term in bold is delete and so would that mean a close that should by that rationale be merge would be closed unjistifiably as delete? I see way too many discussions closed as delete for which the consensus is really questionable by those who typically vote to delete those kinds of articles and thus I am really, really hesitant when I come across any examples that give me pause by potential candidates. As deleting articles is one of three main roles of an admin (aside from protecting/unprotecting and blocking/unblocking) and has the consequence of diminishing are comprehensiveness and value as a reference guide and perhaps turning away readers and editors, I think it is something to seriously consider. As I said above, that is not my only read on the candidate, as I do see some positives elsewhere, but it is what I see. In any event, I have started drawing up a more itemized explanation of what I look for in admin candidates at User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These three examples are all from 2007, and in the case of Emily Sander, the decision at the time may have been to keep, but I note the article now is Murder of Emily Sander, so I count that as a reasonably good call. As for the list of fictional restaurants, whether or not you agree that a category would be a good alternative we are here to decide if the candidate can be trusted with the tools, which sometimes means following consensus, but doesn't mean they can't hold and argue a valid minority view, just as long as they don't use the tools to impose that view when the consensus is against them. Does A Nobody or anyone else have more recent examples? Because all that we have so far is evidence that maybe the candidate wasn't quite ready to run a year ago. ϢereSpielChequers 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked through some others. I suppose something like this always leaves me a bit confused because it's on the fence, i.e. "delete or redirect". If there's a case for a redirect, then why not just go with that? Or this. Per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, we cannot "delete and merge." Plus, how can we merge what's been deleted? Again, though, this is not a candidate that I strongly oppose (more so than anything else, I just hope my concerns are something the candidate thinks about) and I really do not want to just pile on diffs against the candidate. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the opposers, by any chance, possibly supply a single diff to support their claims? We have a sandcastle here of stuff like "Editor has been involved in many Balkan related edit wars", from the first sentence of the first oppose, which, to be fair to the candidate, is an utter, utter falsehood. Back up your claims or strike them. And to certain supporters above who mention disquiet about Balkan-PoV - what PoV please?? Please substantiate your allegations that the candidate has any PoV at all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this edit. I really think that should be made as a reply to Terse or Leujon. It currently looks where it is posted as a reply to me and I am not opposing based on any POV concerns and by contrast I do provided diffs of AfDs which is why I am opposing. Anyway, I just think it's current location would confuse people. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. His refusal to end editing in article where he has been part of edit conflict/warring is not very wise (Balkan related articles). For me it is not possible to accept that user is demanding "higher" standard of Balkan related article of similar non Balkan related articles. This is for me fine example of POV pushing and answers "I have forget to edit similar articles" can be accepted by user which is not part of many Balkan dispute, but for others (question 15)....Animate definition that we can stalk any user which is in our thinking POV pusher is in my thinking great problem, because nobody will stalk user about who we are having good thinking. Animate is not calm enough (comment and Animate reaction), he is having very long memory for user with which he has been in editorial dispute, if you do not agree with him and his friend(s) you are POV pusher and I believe that he is still not accepting fact that witness statements can't be used in articles--Rjecina (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment as far as i can tel AniMate was repsonsing to a vaguely threatening comment made about this very thread. maybe hse should have reacted less uncalmly but the fact that he did this was hardly indicative of being uncalm or unreasonable in general. Also, AniMate has knowledge of Balkan issues and if he does there is no reason why he shouldnt continue to edit in that area. the only possible problem was that if he would use his admin tools to win a debate, which does not seem to be the case due to prior conduct in this area. we should not discouraged editors from editing in areas there have expertise, even if they have been involved in some controversy in the past Smith Jones (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • commentTo tell truth Animate editorial history is very good, but my problem is with his honesty. We are having 2 situations where Animate has accepted that his position is wrong (my blocking and executed Nazi concentration camp personnel(links are in question 14 and 15)) but he has continued with his demands. For the end in his thinking I am POV editor (all ANI reports are saying different) and I am afraid that Animate will block my established account after he will became administrator.--Rjecina (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjecina, when AniMate is an admin, you need have no fears, as it would be procedurally wrong for him/her, as someone that has had interactions with you in the past, to block you for anything (unless you broke the rules absolutely flagrantly). You can rest in peace on that score. Oh, and by the way, while I'm here, you can strike your comments questioning Animate's honesty, and do so right now. You will never meet a more honest editor. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I support AniMate strongly, but that last point was ridiculous. You can't just say 'I think this, you must therefore do this'. — neuro(talk) 01:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    its no more imperius than alot of arguments used on wikipedia pages. at the very least, questionign someones honesty without even so much as adiff that actually supports it seems pretty ridiculous as well. `Smith Jones (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't "rest in peace" a tad too fatalistic? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As everyone following this RfA knows, I've done some editing in Balkans related areas. I've been called dishonest before and a liar and self-deluding. Passions run so high in the area it's pretty common to be insulted. Considering some of the editors on what Rjecina considers "my side" have accused me of Holocaust denial, and considering the fact that I'm Jewish (though non-practicing) being called dishonest doesn't really hurt all that much. Thank you for defending me, but this boy (enough of that he/she nonsense) is all grown up. Rjecina is welcome to his opinion... and in case you haven't noticed, this appears to be going pretty well. Trying to argue opposers down is more often than not fruitless, and your statements of support up top mean much more than anything you can type down here. Thanks, but let it go.--AniMate 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose There are so many bad administrators - whose only goal is to exercise some self-importance. This one will be addition to that number.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs are ineligible to participate. Also, this comment can be counted as a personal attack. Leujohn (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: IPs are not "ineligible to participate". !Voting via IP is ineligible, but simple commenting via IP is generally tolerated (unless it comes e.g. from an indefblocked user). Otherwise, WP:RfA would be semiprotected. 78.34.154.92 (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC) -- Also, when indenting a !vote, please note that in order to preserve autonumbering, each paragraph following the first "live" !vote must be prefixed with a "#". 78.34.154.92 (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral, leaning towards support. Basically looks pretty good, but I would have liked to see a greater article-writing experience. The userpage lists three created articles (all nice but rather short ones) and one expanded article (the stub on Steve Brown (yo-yo player) that the candidate mentioned in answer to Q2); plus good contributions to Nazi human experimentation also mentioned above. Good, but I would have really liked to see a bit more, particularly in the area of creating new content. Nsk92 (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support. Nsk92 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, leaning toward Oppose See Oppose #2 Leujohn (talk)
  2. Neutral as some of my concerns have been answered, I switch my vote to neutral. Still a bit skeptical, but I hope AniMate will live to his promise to leave policing of Balkan related articles to other admins, and restrict his efforts to mediation in this hot area, where his efforts were overall OK. Terse (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Christmas is period of gifts and good wish--Rjecina (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AniMate&oldid=1148854043"