Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Amarkov

Final (3/15/0); Originally scheduled to end 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC). Withdrawn by bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov (talk · contribs) - I'm a Wikipedian (yay!), and I've been editing for about thirteen months. When trawling my talk page archives, I came across a thread from after my first RfA, where I planned to do some work in Category:Wikipedia articles with nonstandard pronunciation. Now, I've begun to work there again, and it feels kinda nice to be editing things unrelated to the drama of meta-debate. I know I haven't seriously edited the mainspace in a while, but I believe that I have the experience to still make good decisions, and hopefully dealing with specific articles more will draw me back.

I have had two prior RfAs, one in February and one in June. Both failed in part due to civility problems. I fully admit that at times, I can get annoyed and make comments that could, um, be phased more nicely. But I'm not perfect, nor do I expect others to be. I try to be civil, and I think that I usually am. The concerns about my mainspace editing have not been addressed, and if it becomes clear that the community still expects this, I will withdraw.

I have no illusions that this will be an uncontroversial RfA. To alleviate this, I have adopted a strict philosophy of not caring too much. If this passes, I'll be happy, but if not, I won't care too much. I will just go on as a regular editor. After all, it's no big deal.-Amarkov moo! 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hope I'm confident enough that I accept my own nomination. -Amarkov moo! 06:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to help out Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Everyone intends to take part in CAT:CSD, and I'm no exception to that. I still need to gain more familiarity with images, though, and until I do I obviously won't be dealing much with them. I also intend to help with WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, both of which I used to be quite active at. I'll also deal with ANI some, although my enthusiasm for the page has kinda waned. Other than that, I don't really have specific ideas of how I will use the tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's hard to say what my "best contributions" are. Most of what I do involves removing things, as will most admin work. While this is a necessary part of Wikipedia, I can't really be proud about how I did this great section removal, or how I had this great AfD. What I'd call my best contribution is actually an essay, Wikipedia:The Truth. Nobody seems to make overt references to it, but at the same time, it's become widely cited since creation (and even translated into Portugese!)
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: As anyone who knows me, or knows of me, or knows someone who's heard of me, will tell you, I have certainly been in conflicts. I don't know that I've had stress caused, since I usually do a good job of not worrying about Wikipedia when I get off, but they definitely weren't nice, "let's sit down over a cup of tea" conflicts. I'm not sure if asking how I deal with conflicts make sense; when I get into a serious conflict in the first place, I do so because I believe that someone needs to be sanctioned. If I'm convinced that this belief is incorrect, I'm willing to change it, but then I have no more dispute, so there's nothing to resolve.

Question from Acalamari

4. Why did you include the link in this edit to your user page? Acalamari 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A:

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Amarkov Requests for adminship/Amarkov 2 Requests for adminship/Amarkov 3
  • Comment Nom has not edited since posting this. Perhaps he is off line. Dlohcierekim 04:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Amarkov before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • No improvement since last time. Hardly any article edits since then, so the same problem of inexperience in article editing applies. I oppose this time, but still want to encourage this candidate to get his head downa and do lots of editing, and come back in six months time or so. --Tony Sidaway
    • Tony's argument, viz., that Amarkov's unfamiliarity with mainspace (or, at the very least, the lack of a record from which to divine the extent of Amarkov's familiarity with the policies, guidelines, and practices that characterize our work therein [and, more broadly, even those processes that bear little direct relationship to mainspace editing]) is such that we cannot be sure that he might not avolitionally or unhelpfully misuse the tools (by acting, say, whereof he does not know, or by being unable to assist editors who might seek help from him [in has capacity as a sysop] directly relative to mainspace work), is, I'd concede, tenable. Meaning not to begin once more a discussion that has taken place, in one way or another, at any of several RfAs and several times at WT:RFA, though, I would observe that the contention that an editor who elects not to partake of (much) encyclopedia editing ought not to be sysopped solely because his/her devotion to the project is insufficient or because he/she chooses to work in areas that do not directly implicate mainspace, seems entirely without basis, at least if we accept that our decisions at RfA are to be guided by the principle that all those whose being admins would benefit the project should be given the tools. Joe 05:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Moral Support Amarkov is a valued and experienced Wikipedian and for that I present my moral support, but I also think that some fundamental concerns from the previous RfAs have not been given proper consideration. Húsönd 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support Because it does not appear that this will have any chance of success, I will not undertake to restate at length the reasons for which I have in the past supported Amarkov for adminship; I will say simply that my support continues, consistent with my RfA standards, to be quite strong. I cannot say that I am surprised at the depth and breadth of the reasoning of those opposing, but I must confess that I think the community to be altogether wrong about this one and that the candidate, whose being a sysop would, it is relatively undisputed, have a positive net effect on the project, and who has contributed quite constructively to the project, deserves much better. Joe 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Cannot help but have an impression that wikipedia is his playground rather than workplace. `'Míkka>t 01:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose - A career bureaucrat, and the nom statement is bordering on a joke. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose If you make mainspace editing a regular habit, then I might have considered supporting you. However, as it stands, you still lack any real contributions to the encyclopedia in recent memory. You have failed to heed the advice of other editors in your previous RfAs, who said you needed to reduce your Wikipedia discussion and start editing the encyclopedia for a change. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sorry but No, didn't listen at all to what happened in prior RFAs that he failed, still over wikipolitics only, and some very questionable actions from this user in the past month or two, with the WP:POINT RFA statement makes me border at never. This is a Secret account 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Note if you do article writing in the future, and avoid silly wikipolitics, I may support in the future This is a Secret account 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Very little recent activity in mainspace. I'm not as active in mainspace as I'd prefer, but Amarkov's last 50 mainspace edits are over a period of six months. Chaz Beckett 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose <edit conflict> "Rants" (nom's term| from time to time on his user page, such as this one, this one, and this one that seem to display a poor understanding of consensus or a disregard for it. His answers to the questions show he wants to work on WP:CSD, but I saw no edits notifying users of articles tagged for deletion. That suggests either inexperience with tagging them or not communicating by notifying creators. Such makes me doubt readiness to participate in that area with the delete button. I appreciate Wikipedia:The Truth. I would have liked to have seen something more substantial in the way of editing/building of articles. His answer to question 3 expresses a lack of understanding of how to deal with wikistress and conflict. While it may be that his Userpage edits are merely venting, <prior difs> I would like to see a more conforming way of dealing with conflict. He seems to express the feeling that because the standard approaches do not work for his conflicts, the problem is with Wikipedia rather than his attitude or behavior. Dlohcierekim 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    The reason why you don't see any notifications for speedy deletions in recent contribs is because the candidate hasn't tagged any recently. Furthermore, I was of the impression that a bot now does talk page notifications when an article is tagged for speedy deletion, rather than the tagger, to save time and improve efficiency - please correct me if I'm wrong on this point. Daniel 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I believe that is the case nowadays. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reminder. Yes, I've gone to lay on the NNWARN and seen that a bot beat me. I use twinkle, so maybe I'm beating the bot. Dlohcierekim 03:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    the bot is working well now, but it has been erratic. DGG (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    To add on to your point, as far as I can see, he hasn't had an article he tagged for speedy deletion deleted since June 2007 (based on his deleted contributions). Metros (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I think Amarkov is too aggressive and combative to be an admin. Captain panda 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose on June 30, your second RFA failed, mainly because of lack of edits to the mainspace. You've made 32 edits to the mainspace since then. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. --JayHenry (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Your best contribution is a joke essay? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose: Per your answer to question 2, and the concerns raised above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Reading through the link I found in unanswered Q4, I found a few posts at an off-Wiki mumble site indicating that this nomination is mainly here to prove a point about Wikipedia's adminship. (Not a WP:POINT, since that implies disruption that isn't happening -- just a regular point.) Adminship is no big deal, but it's not something to be taken in jest either. (And actually, I wonder if these oppose votes will be discussed at that off-Wiki site. They probably will be, under the heading, "Look at those evil Wikipedians running their political games!") --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose(ec) You have twice as many edits on WP:ANI as you do on any article, yet the rants linked above and the general attitude displayed by your answers don't show that your time there has resulted in any deeper understanding of policy. I can't entrust the tools to someone who may never learn how to correctly use them. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 04:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Lack of mainspace contributions. utcursch | talk 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
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.