AniMate

Picture of the day

Colias croceus, also known as the clouded yellow, is a small butterfly of the family Pieridae, the yellows and whites. Its breeding range is North Africa and southern Europe and eastwards through Turkey into the Middle East, but it occurs throughout much of Europe as a summer migrant, sometimes as far north as Scandinavia. In Asia, its range extends into central Siberia in the north and barely into India in the south, although it is not found in Central Asia. The species can live in any open area in the countryside, including downland, coastal cliffs and fields containing the caterpillar's host plants, at an elevation up to 1,600 metres (5,200 ft) above sea level. Colias croceus has a wingspan of 46–54 millimetres (1.8–2.1 in), with the upperside of its wing being golden to orange yellow with a broad black margin on all four wings and a black spot near the centre forewing. This mating pair was photographed in Pirin National Park, Bulgaria.Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

My sandbox

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Toy block

Try not to do this too often. ;) Durova³³² 04:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

heheh, that's what you get for ignoring medical advice... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Like to ask a favor

Hello AniMate. Hope everything is well with you and yours. Like to ask a favor, if you have the time, to participate in both the discussions and help in monitoring a particular article, as shown here. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions and would appreciate your input and advice. As always, thanks for the help. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm trying not to participate at AfD. It brings out the worst in some users, and I often find myself losing respect for editors who are active there. AniMate^draw 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, that is not me :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's just a general statement about AfD and I don't intend to spend time there unless I feel it absolutely necessary. AniMate^draw 00:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

oh the humanity... :)

Polargeo suggested nominating me for adminship... I feel like there's a good chance I'm gonna get shot down in flames because of all the stuff I've had to deal with on these damn Balkans articles. What do you think? Flames? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to say flames, but not just because of the Balkans articles. First off, you don't always use edit summaries. Some think it shouldn't be a huge deal, but it is. I've opposed for it in the past, because edit summaries are one of only a handful of ways we communicate with each other on Wikipedia. Secondly, your edits in Wikipedia space are seemingly all focused on the Balkans disputes. AfD work is the biggie people will look for. Since you cannot use tools in areas you are involved with and you don't participate in many other areas, many editors will say that you don't have any use for the tools. Thirdly, you were blocked less than six months ago and have three blocks that were never overturned on you block log. Fourthly, you are not a rollbacker. It's no different from the feature admins use, and a history with it will show other users you can be trusted to revert responsibly. Finally, one or more of those could likely be overcome for most editors, but your friends from the Balkans articles will raise enough red flags that there will likely be little support. If you're interested in trying down the road, I suggest editor review or admin coaching. Editor review is designed specifically to give you feedback and criticism, and spending a few months correcting the issues raised there is a good way to get in shape for an RfA. You'll likely hear much of what I've said here and some things I haven't thought of. Admin coaching is a little more controversial, because some editors believe adminship should be a natural evolution of your editing and not something you specifically try to get. Still, it's useful, and many current admins have benefited from it. That's my (surprisingly long) take on things. I'd say diversifying your edits is the biggest thing you need to do. Spend some time at AfDs, get any article you can edit with minimal controversy up to good or featured status, do some new page patrolling (but start with the oldest), participate in as many RfAs as possible, do some work with suspected copyright violations, don't get blocked, use edit summaries, and figure out exactly how and when you want to use the tools. Not all are necessary, but if you do some of those things, in addition to your normal editing, you may be able to pass at some point in the spring of next year. AniMate^draw 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, now at least I know what to do - that's certainly an improvement. I honestly never thought about trying for it... I'm willing to start working towards the goal, but I'm afraid it all might be for nothing. As you said, there's a number of Balkans-buddies of mine who'd get a coronary if they saw the RfA (Imbris and Sir Floyd spring to mind, they wouldn't like it at all :). Can two or three users like that sabotage an RfA? In other words, do I really stand a chance? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you stand a fair chance. RfA participants are usually savvy enough to notice a group of editors "voting" as a nationalistic bloc. Some editors who normally wouldn't bother may support simply to counter the nationalistic BS. Remember, Rjecina tried to tank my RfA like that. It didn't work. The biggest problem you're going to have is likely your block log. Diversifying your focus, edit summaries, and all of the things I mentioned above can be easily overcome and changed. The block log isn't going anywhere. So stop edit warring, obviously, even if you're right. I'd also say that rather than continuing to complain about Imbris or Sir Floyd, you should file for mediation. If that doesn't work, you should draft a WP:RFC/U on one or both of them and have another user involved in the articles certify it. Considering the pattern I've noticed, you'll likely have one filed on you in retaliation. Rather than get angry and try to get it deleted, let it stand. Admins who patrol that area will be smart enough to see what's going on and it will likely be deleted without any input from you. If it's not deleted, civilly respond in the appropriate section and see how it plays out. If the offending behavior fails to change, go to WP:ArbCom. I think these constant threads on WP:AN/I are likely to be about as hurtful to a future RfA as the block log, but if you wait for at least six months from you last block, follow the advice I gave you above, and show that you understand that admins and their noticeboards aren't the ideal way to deal with dispute resolution, your chances should be rather good. Dispute resolution can be slow and aggravating, but there's nothing on Wikipedia in regards to the Balkans during WWII that is so pressing it has to be solved right now. The world won't end if these things don't go your way today, tomorrow, or next week. If you step off the battlefield and up to the negotiating table (aka dispute resolution), you'll find your fellow editors much more open to the idea of you as an admin. AniMate^draw 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean... there's something beyond the trenches?!? :) Well, all the steps will have to wait until after I'm done banging my head against the wall for this exam next Monday. Thanks so much for your time and effort. It may be time for me to start looking at the bigger picture on Wiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your exams. Adminship really isn't such a big deal. I don't use my tools particularly often anymore, and have on occasion considered retiring them for a while so I don't feel required to clean up messes that are more aggravating than they should be. If you're content with editing in one area, then there really isn't any reason to pursue adminship. You won't be able to use your tools for the most part, and if you do you'll likely be desysoped sooner rather than later. Please do take to heart that bit about edit summaries. In the editing section of Special:Preferences there's a field to check so you will be prompted when entering a blank edit summary. It makes it so much easier to see what you're doing without actually having to check your diffs. Aside from all of that, I strongly suggest you follow the last piece of advice about dispute resolution. Admin or not, this conflict has progressed beyond the point where an administrator can actually intercede without becoming involved. Follow the steps... for your own peace of mind. Editing from outside of the trenches is much more pleasant (which is why I've decided to mostly stay away from AfD and those battles).AniMate^draw 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello AniMate. Some good advice. At least six months from the last block and better edit summaries would certainly improve his chances of not going up in flames. DYK DIREKTOR has over 21000 edits spread right across the different spaces. Plenty of them in various wikipedia admin areas. Just three blocks for edit warring is quite minor when put into the context of what he has dealt with. The fact that he is able to keep his cool facing a high degree of pressure and the fact that he is able to remain neutral on Balkans articles and give sound advice to nationalist editors on all sides is a great credit. He certainly has more experience than most editors up for RfA. I suppose the most important consideration is does he want to do it? Polargeo (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to be heavily involved in Balkans editing, and I agree with DIREKTOR on most things, but there is little chance he'll become an administrator now. Even should he become one, he will not be able to use his administrative tools in articles related to the Balkans, and that's where he edits most. Administrative duties are mostly boring and routine. You can't use your extra tools to win conflicts. I think DIREKTOR is a great editor, but he isn't ready to become an administrator. AniMate^draw 11:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes agreed. But it is not all about his own conflicts which he generally handles very well. I have noticed some really good conflict resolution/mentoring and general wikipedia editing/technical advice coming from DIREKTOR which is why I thought he could do the job. Polargeo (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I never imagined I'd use admin tools to win arguments! What I'd mostly use them for is protecting articles from being destabilized by edit-warring ("forcing" the parties to start discussing). When incidents such as this occur repeatedly, I would be able to handle the matter on the spot - instead of being called a "constant complainer" for reporting it, or worse, getting blocked myself for repairing the damage too many times. Plus when you're an admin people actually listen to what you say instead of attacking you (in addition to the person they're in conflict with). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you can't use your tools in that instance. You're involved. AniMate^draw 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I? (I know about WP:UNINVOLVED) I never saw the guy before that, and all my interactions with him involved reverting very obvious vandalism? ("If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.") The guy was removing undeniably valid data because he thought I was a fascist and it was "insulting to the dead"?

In any case, my main ambition is to become the "go-to guy" for Balkans conflicts to the users from around here. Most admins (for various reasons) shy away from mediation and assistance in resolving these serious disputes (apart from Kosovo). I on the other hand give these articles my full attention anyway. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You're heavily involved in the articles about the area. Except in cases of very obvious vandalism you cannot use your tools in any way. You can't protect articles from POV pushers and you can't block POV pushers. I agree that more administrative attention is needed there, but it can't be from an administrator involved in editing the related articles. AniMate^draw 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant with the example: I'd be able to fix obvious vandalism and do something about it on the spot. Every three days someone removes whole sections from the Chetniks article, for example. At no point did I imagine I'd go around "dealing out justice" with my admin tools or whatnot. I'd lose them soon enough that way in any case :). I'd focus my efforts as an admin on dispute mediation. But I'm getting ahead of myself, probably won't pass anyway... xP --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think DIREKTOR can be a go-to guy anyway and often is right now, without the tools. One issue with Balkans articles is that the vandalism is sometimes so complex it is very difficult for an editor such as myself to know who is the vandal. Usually takes the form of POV pushing of some sort to the extreme extent that it is actually complete misinformation and hence vandalism. I thought DIREKTOR was a vandal when I first started editing Balkans articles, I just couldn't work out who was for what. DIREKTOR I think you have to decide if you wish to be an admin and if so work towards it as AniMate says. I think you do stand a chance but you have to work out what you would do as an admin because some of your replies here would earn you oppose votes from people nervous of what you may do with the tools. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing is certain: I'd read-up on the inhibitions in detail, and would never ever use them in any capacity that even borders on anything that is contrary to policy. If my replies here are not in accordance with the rules, that is simply because I never really took the time to study them in detail (especially their de facto application). In other words, as things stand now I obviously have no clear perception of what I could or could not do with the tools. Adminship had never even occurred to me thus far. The point I'm making is that once I've taken the time to fully understand policy on this, I'd certainly never even come close to violating it (i.e. if it is wrong to use the tools in any of my example situations above, then without question I would never use them in such a situation). I am by NO means interested in breaking any policy. That would frankly be stupid and generally wrong. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well this is all rather academic, since we both seem to agree that this isn't the time for you to make an adminship run. I'd like to point out that great editors don't always become administrators. In fact, I've contemplated giving up my tools from time to time. You're held to higher standard, and occasionally I want to get down in the trenches and fire some shots, but generally feel like I must refrain. Regardless, if you want to work towards adminship, I'd be happy to grant you rollback as a first step, though you should read up on the policy. I'd actually be happy to grant it to you regardless of whether or not you want to become an admin. It's dead useful in reverting obvious vandalism. AniMate^draw 05:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's ANI thread

Sorry, but I felt the need to undo your closing of Ottava's thread at ANI. Although I agree in part with your reasoning, I don't think closing it will help at this point (as I pointed it out in my edit summary)[1].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And I undid your reopening of it. There isn't going to be a consensus for a short-term or long-term block. Outside of those two results, there isn't much we can resolve at that board. Concerned parties can always file a request for comment. That drama magnet isn't going to produce anything useful, and there are other steps in dispute resolution that can offer better and more useful results. AniMate^draw 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. Although I hope it will not pop up again, I "fear" it might not get to rest but rather getting blown out of proportion somewhere else (if not at ANI itself) again. But well, who really cares? If Ottava stops, everything will be fine. *smile* The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It likely will blow up somewhere else, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone does file an RfC about Ottava's behavior. Wikipedia has long had a problem with excellent content creators who interact poorly with other users. The point of the incident noticeboard is for administrative intervention for an "incident". This goes beyond one "incident" and being the drama magnet that it is, AN/I is ill suited for dealing with something as complex as the Ottava situation. Besides, the thread really had devolved into petty sniping and people trying to score points off each other rather than any type of attempt to solve a problem. Likely this will make it's way to ArbCom, and frankly I'm stunned Ottava hasn't been there yet. The situation does need to be dealt with, but when a discussion like that is generating more heat than light, the correct course is to end it and attempt other avenues for resolving the dispute. AniMate^draw 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Unlike you I didn't know this user at all before this incident. I don't know you either but I now can and will take your trustable words . My apologies for undoing your edit as I now see your convincing reasoning. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you can appreciate my stellar logic! </sarcasm> Actually, I've never interacted with Ottava, I've mainly just stood at the sidelines, shaking my head. I've also seen more than enough drama at AN/I to know when a thread isn't going to be productive. Alot of the people who participated there should know the same. This will get sorted out eventually, by either by arbitration or a rogue admin deciding to flat out indef Ottava. Considering his behavior, I can't imagine many admins who would willingly unblock without some major concessions on his part. AniMate^draw 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it and I'm basically with you regarding ANI and drama, which I really dislike a lot although I must admit I somehow participated in it. Time to distance myself from such I guess. And yes, I do appreciate your "stellar logic". ;) Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)I've arrived here following a post I made on Teh Kleen's talkpage. I've been considering lodging an WP:RFC/U with regard to Ottava and his conduct. Merely considering mind. I'd appreciate advice on this, though I understand if such advice is not forthcoming. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to talk to some of the other editors who have been complaining about Ottava. User:Jehochman comes to mind, as he is experienced with both arbitration and RfCs. Secondly start a page in your user space, perhaps at User talk:Craftyminion/RfC, collect diffs with an eye on actually starting the RfC in a reasonable amount of time to avoid the page being labeled an attack page. If you don't think you'll be able to finish a draft in a few days, collect the diffs off line. Of course take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive. I don't participate there often, but I participated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody. In the end it didn't bear any fruit, but it was thorough and well drafted. That's about all the advice I can give you. As I said above, I've not interacted with Ottava Rima, but I recognize that the behavior is problematic and really, really has to stop. AniMate^draw 01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm considering all these things most carefully. Thank you for your advice. :) Crafty (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I hope you decide to go ahead with it. It will no doubt be the epitome of teh dramaz, but it needs to be done. AniMate^draw 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)