Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov

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.

[edit] Amarkov

Final (32/38/1); Ended 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov (talk · contribs) - Amarkov is one of those users that presents themselves in such a way that you think they already are an administrator. I've seen this user in many parts of the project and I've always seen this user displaying the best qualities you would expect to see in an administrator. A diligent vandal fighter, this user has also done his share of policy discussion. I feel this is an excellent candidate. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Amarkov is a regular at deletion review, which is my primary area of interaction with him. He regularly offers thoughtful opinions, demonstrates caring about Wikipedia, and a good understanding of the deletion policy, process and related guidelines. I checked him out for a nomination a month ago, and I believe he will make a fine admin, not rushing in to situations he doesn't understand well. I've seen him in policy/process spaces I rarely visit, so he may well be more well rounded than I am. GRBerry 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Ergh. Someone else was going to nominate near the end of the month, but what the heck, two weeks shouldn't make a huge difference. I predict that I will actually get all the questions answered a week from now. -Amarkov moo! 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
By a week I meant 27 hours. -Amarkov moo! 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems fairly obvious that I'm not going to get any other advice than what I've gotten, so there's no point in wasting people's time. This also prevents worries over when it should close. -Amarkov moo! 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: CAT:CSD is chronically backlogged, which is annoying, so I'd work some on that. I actually am unlikely to close all that many XfD debates, since I'm not about to give up commenting in any I find remotely interesting. I'll also do some prod stuff, and helping out at WP:RFPP, my first ever watchlisted page. And, of course, ANI, although I discuss stuff there already, so the only difference is that I can actually do something about blatant issues instead of waiting for an admin to come along. I intend on helping out at AIV at some point, but first I would need a bit more experience in vandal fighting, as all I have comes from just my watchlisted articles; I've never been motivated to seek out vandalism. However, I intend to stay away from arbitration enforcement as much as I can, since I really have no interest in being involved with Arbcom, and I also doubt I'll use the rollback tool that much, since I like to provide something more specific in the edit summary, and I can't figure out from anything I've read what exactly it does. One of my pet peeves is people who overuse scripts to revert stuff, and rollback counts, so... yeah. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm not quite sure how to answer this. Given how I contribute, this is like asking an admin "Which of your page protections are you most pleased with?", to which you would get an answer like "Um... what?". Anyway, I have some rather bad stubs, and a humorous essay, and... that's really all the substantial edits I have that aren't contributing to some sort of discussion. So I'm really most proud of my assorted discussion contributions, and I can't pick any particular one. Malber called me a "diligent vandal fighter", and I'm not sure why; I've never done any vandal fighting for articles. So I can't say something like "I'm proud of my vandal fighting" either. -Amarkov moo! 03:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
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: My first ever edits were part of a massive scale edit war at Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. With one established editor reverting all the edits of one person clueless about policy (me), and various other people who were just acting in bad faith. I had to read like 10 policy pages trying to find how to request protection, and I got a fourth level vandalism warning. But then the page ended up protected, and I had read up on policy, so I just removed the specific release date, which was what I intended to do in the first place. That also led to WP:RFPP being the first page I ever watchlisted, and for some reason, I've never bothered to remove it. Then again, seeing about 700 redlinks on my watchlist...
Of course, there are various minor conflicts I've been involved with, and I can't pick out any particular one easily, so I'm just going to make this vague reference to them. Usually, I just discuss the conflict, but when it's too stressful to just do that, I take a break, and remind myself that no conflict on Wikipedia is worth worrying unduly over. I will defend my point, but if I end up on the losing side, or it just becomes too stressful to participate further, I forget about it and move on. Wikipedia has survived for fiveish years without any sort of participation from me, so I'm sure that a consensus going against me, or even just making me stop arguing by annoyance, is not going to be a catastrophic mistake that I must protest, even if I disagree. -Amarkov moo! 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: There is nothing intrinsically there to handle. If they're doing something which would cause any other editor to be blocked, they should be blocked too, of course. But if they are not doing so, I truly don't understand why people think editors with a conflict of interest should be held to different standards than anyone else. I would caution them to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V, but I don't think that's what you're asking. -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: When an IP editor is engaged in a good faith content dispute, no matter how wrong they are. Semi-protecting because someone is wrong in a content dispute should be done about as much as article banning should be in those circumstances (read: NEVER), because the effect is the same; one side is cut out from any power to enact changes. Of course, said IP can be brought through dispute resolution like anyone else. -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I really don't like G11 all that much. Anyway, if a business article blatantly violates NPOV (i.e. "This company makes the best foos EVER!"), and there is no better version to revert to, it should be deleted. Anything less obvious than my example, I would not delete under G11; I would see if it falls under any other speedy criteria, prod it, or create an AfD. G11 shares a spot with A7 as the only speedy criteria I have ever seen sucessfully challenged, so I'd really feel uncomfortable applying it very much. -Amarkov moo! 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Proabivouac 04:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Why do you believe it important that Wikipedia maintain a category to identify underaged users, per this discussion, see also [1]?
A: If there is a consensus that it should be deleted, then it's perfectly fine, but if there isn't, then someone shouldn't get to delete it because they feel it's a bad idea. DRV closed with a consensus to keep it deleted, which, although a decision at CfD would be nicer, is fine by me. Similarly, I'm willing to accept a statement from Jimbo as at least pseudo-meditiation, because I really don't care to be involved in a drawn-out dispute, but I have seen no evidence of such a statement, and everyone born before 1993 will be at least 14 now, so I don't think that the consensus for the child category necessarily applies. In summary, it isn't important that we keep the category, but it is important that we not allow any admin who stops by to delete categories they deem a bad idea, not only without discussion, but against it. -Amarkov moo! 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from llywrch

8. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A: I don't spend an entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content (at least the way you imply in your question) even now, so no, I can't. -Amarkov moo! 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments


Discussion

  • I !voted support on this nomination, and still think the candidate would be a satisfactory administrator, but several of the opposers have made valid points, and it's become clear that a favorable consensus is not going to emerge on this RfA. The candidate should consider withdrawing at this time, giving attention to all the comments here, diversifying his involvement in various areas of the project, and coming back in a few months. As it happens, a very large percentage of recent successful RfA's were second or third applications (perhaps Durin or NoSeptember or Majorly can calculate the numbers), of candidates with a core of good contributions but a perceived need for more time or experience here, including my recent nominee; so this comment is more than the proverbial cold comfort, and I hope will be seriously considered. Newyorkbrad 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I partly agree with Newyorkbrad but on the other hand I would not want editors to make major changes to the way they contribute so they can become administrators. Amarkov has made it very clear that he does not wish to make major contributions in the mainspace- something he does not find enjoyable or rewarding [2]. That his projectspace contributions are not enough to persuade the community he would make a good sysop is regretable, but I would rather Amarkov continues to enjoy what contributions he makes to the encyclopedia than feel forced to make edits he does not wish to. WjBscribe 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Article-writing is always a good thing, but that is not necessarily the only form of diversification that has been suggested. Let's continue this if desired on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not intend on withdrawing; two days in, I at least know why people think I shouldn't be an admin yet, even if I don't intend action upon many of the things. Even though I'm not going to pass, I might as well get some advice. -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support I have seen this user demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedian Policy in countless places. In fact, I was about to ask Amarkov if he had considered being nominated soon. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as co-nominator. See above. GRBerry 04:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. From my observances of him, clearly admin material. Grandmasterka 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, I've had this one watchlisted as one to vote support for. Been waiting a while. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Do you remember who recently said "It's become increasingly clear to me that the worst administrators are the ones that do not actually write articles"? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per good overall record, knowledge of policy and participation in policy and incident discussions, answers above. Newyorkbrad 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support, ergh, the 'someone else' is me! This is one fantastic user, and we need more admins with an acute understanding of policy. riana_dzasta 01:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Seen Amarkov's name pop up on my "good editor" radar numerous times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. Active editor with good knowledge of policy. Prolog 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support I beat one of the nominators???!?!??!?!?! Cool!!!! Captain panda In vino veritas 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose
  9. Amarkov's-not-an-admin?-Really? Support. S.D. ¿п? § 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support edit summaries on the mark, decent amount of mainspace, looks trustworthy, could use the tools. Check and go. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. support I run into this candidate every once in a while and they always seem to be reasonable. Seems dedicated, don't see any reason to oppose... we need more admins who'll do CSD, if nothing else. --W.marsh 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support. We don't always agree (particularly at WP:DRV), but all in all this is a good candidate with a fairly decent handle on policy. Picaroon's concern is valid, but it's been a while since then, and I think the candidate has improved enough. --Coredesat 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see below. --Coredesat 03:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - I had this page watchlisted even before it existed because Amarkov has consistently shown good judgment at WP:TFD and WP:REQT. —Dgiest c 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Amarkov is knowledgable about policy and I trust him not to abuse the tools. Adminship is suppose to be no big deal. OK, he doesn't write much in the mainspace, and has been honest and upfront about that. If he becomes an admin he will do good work on the various backlogs, allowing others who enjoy working in the mainspace to have more time to do so. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and his contributions in projectspace- in XfDs, policy discussions etc. are valuable. WjBscribe 03:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support good user. Yuser31415 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Weak Support While I share some of the concerns of Blnguyen, overall things seem good. As long as the user doesn't get involved in any sock-related issues for a while he should be fine. JoshuaZ 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, I recognize that I am really not going to be the best person to deal with sockpuppet issues. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support as nom. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support inasmuch as there is a total lack of reason to oppose. I carefully reviewed all of the oppose comments offered thus far. I looked back at the child Wikipedians debates. I obviously disagree with Amarkov there, but I found nothing wrong with his behavior. Simply having a different opinon isn't bad behavior - several well-respected contributors favored keeping the category. The purpose of RFA is to determine whether or not Amarkov can be trusted with three buttons. I disagree with him, he doesn't edit enough articles, and he prodded something that should have been an IAR speedy don't convince me not to trust him. --BigDT 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support (moo!). I have seen Amarkov frequently on AfD. He understands policy well, and his comments reflect an excellent understanding of policy and a cautious attitude to admin duties. YechielMan 06:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - seems to be a very good user, always assumes good faith. Article writing isn't a big deal-from K37 06:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Strong support- I, for one, don't believe you need article writing skills to be an admin. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)07:01, Tuesday, 13 February '07
  21. This is my rare exception-to-lack-of-article-editing support vote, for A is usually a voice of reason at DRV that puts editors three times his age to shame. ~ trialsanderrors 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support per experiance and with advice to address concerns. BuickCenturyDriver 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Very sincere and mature, very cool when the editing gets hot, which is the most important factor for a good admin. Also, to the people who say you have to edit articles, you don't. Amarkov has the free will to edit whichever articles he likes and if he doesn't know much about something, itcould be just as polite to leave it alone and move on to something else rather than trying to edit it better, not knowing a thing about it. J.J.Sagnella 10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Despite the lack of mainspace, this candidate makes very intelligent contributions to deletion discussions and would benefit from having the mop. I'm a bit disappointed that he'd rather comment than close, but I sometiimes feel that urge myself and think it's understandable.--Kchase T 12:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support For heavens' sake, policy experience is a plus! An admin-candidate who knows his or her way around Wikispace is virtually guaranteed not to abuse the tools (given that he or she displays the right temperament, of course.) A relative lack of mainspace edits may mean the candidate is inexperienced in an area or two, but he or she is very likely to be circumspect before charging into unknown territory, and also very likely to be a quick learner, with thorough knowledge of all wiki-workings. The admincorps needs Wiki-gnomes more than it needs brilliant writers; gnomes are the ones who have greatest need of the mop, and have the time to use it. Xoloz 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, I'm seeing a lot of names below that don't seem to show up at RFAs often, which makes me wonder who Amarkov irritated and why. However I still believe he would make a good admin, relatively few mainspace edits notwithstanding. Those he does have are not POV or against policy, as near as I can tell, so this seems like people being overly picky. -- nae'blis 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support This guy's good. Convinced by the guys above me, and how he answered his questions.--GCFreak2 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Meets my liberal criteria for RfA's, see user page. Sometimes I find Amarkov abrasive, which I take as awkward attempts at wit. This does not rise to the level of a conduct problem. I would advise him to affect deliberate restraint in his dealings as an admin, until in the fullness of time ,it may come natural.Edivorce 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Weak support When I saw the name, I was ready to support; then I saw the tally and wondered how an editor I've found measured and reasonable had attracted so many opposes. I assumed that he did mainspace work in areas different from mine. After finding out about his low article writing, my support wavered, but I've decided that I can make an exception in his case. His discussions have displayed a respect for the value of contributors' hard work and a cautious, measured attitude that allays my normal concerns about editors that don't have article-writing to ground them. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Always civil, cordial, smart and level-headed. I have every reason to believe he will be fair and use good judgement. A credit to Wikipedia. --Oakshade 08:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support He is one of the best people around. I am on wikibreak but very happy to check the RFAs because I do not wanted to lose the honor to supporting him. :). However, I maintain that there system has problems and select lame people as admins. No offence intended! ALM 10:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support excellent contributor to policy and bureaucratic issues, which he would have to deal with if he was an admin.-- danntm T C 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Your behavior at this CFD, the DR which you initiated, and the surrounding brouhaha gave me a really bad impression of your judgement. It isn't your original support for keeping the category, but instead the activism with which you supported its existence and recreation, that makes me unable to support you; instead, it leads me to oppose you. I want admins to be able to realize when common sense supersedes process and policy, and this was one of those occasions. I'm obviously going to stick out like sore thumb in an RfA which will garner a huge wave of supports, but I feel that you're not suited to be an admin at this time. Picaroon 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose - far too bureaucratic and is easily done in by sockpuppeteers. Firstly you said somewhere on another RfA that you would be fine with an admin having < 200 mainspace edits, but not an admin with < 200 WP edits, showing that you value paperwork more than encyclopedia building as the ultimate goal. Then you have almost 4 times as many WP edits as articles, and with your 800 mainspace edits, you already have almost 100 ANI edits. Far too political. The other thing is your defense of User:A Ramachandran even after Dmcdevit CU-ed them to be sockpuppets, who had group voted with User:Ekajati and her farm on a few AfDs saying that their editing interests weren't identical - any sockmaster who isn't totally primitive in their methods will split their sockpuppet accounts to do sepearte work, and only converge when necessary in limited usage so that it is not obvious. I guess that if you would spend more time editing actual articles you would see these tactics more. That's one benefit of editing articles, you learn more about crafty users, which you appear to believe is of secondary no importance I can't see how mainspace edits are at all relevant to adminship. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    I defended Ramachandran because my experiences with him didn't look like those of a sockpuppet, and I found it hard to believe that a permanently banned user could act so well. And for what it's worth, I did later change my mind. -Amarkov moo! 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose we're here to write an encyclopedia; you don't appear to do that. I'd at least like one decent article, you don't even appear to have that. I'm not the type to oppose for "needs more writing less fighting" but seriously, what's the purpose of being here if you don't write anything? --Majorly (o rly?) 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose sorry but question 2 leaves me highly uninspired. I would at least like to see some article writing. ~ Arjun 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose. You spend almost all of your time here doing policy discussion. This is not why we're even here at Wikipedia. I requested a while back that you edit the encyclopedia, but you said you would continue to edit the Wikipedia mainspace because that's what you wanted to do. Your last 50 mainspace edits go back January 13, exactly a month ago. In that same time, you have made over 1,000 total edits on Wikipedia. Your answer to Q2 attests to the lack of work you have put into the encyclopedia. I'm not trying to be a stickler about editcountitis, but for goodness sakes, look at your edit spread. Like Blnguyen said, you're far too bureaucratic. I just can't support your RfA at this time. Another example of my concerns can be seen here. Amarkov prodded this article saying that it was a "Duplicate of Pochama, except formatted weirdly." This clearly should have been speedy deleted. Why would you want to keep a perfectly no-good article for 5 days? This could have been deleted based on the fact it was a copy of another article, or CSD G2 as this page was the user's first edit on Wikipedia, and he may not have known article creation guidelines. Nishkid64 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Not enough article edits 68.37.235.48 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Please log in to comment at RfAs. riana_dzasta 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Didn't he already comment? --W.marsh 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Heh, OK, please log in before commenting at RfAs ;) riana_dzasta 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not enough article edits, too bureacratic as per Nishkid64 and Blnguyen (The previous IP comment was me) Dinojerm 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, cannot see the need for Amarkov to have admin tools. He doesn't do much editing, doesn't fight vandals, won't be closing AfDs as he'll be voting in them. I'm concerned that Amarkov's knowledge is all theory and no practice. Mallanox 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Changed to oppose, per Blnguyen and Nishkid. – Chacor 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose seems to be here mostly to play wikipolitics. spends too much time playing wikipolitics. While I find him generally friendly and likable, the total lack of article writing is probably a cause of the bureaucratic process-compulsiveness and extended defense of pointless positions. Take some time off from arguing about stuff and try writing some stuff instead, and watch your perspective broaden. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    That the candidate needs more mainspace experience and article-writing to be fully qualified for adminship is a reasonable position (indeed, one that may very well prevail here). The community can tell the editor that although he's decided he can best contribute in Wikipedia space, he needs more experience where it's lacking before he's ready to pick up tools. But I would urge rephrasing of "seems to be here mostly to play wikipolitics" which could be read as carrying, I suspect inadvertently, an imputation that I think is unwarranted. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Intended an observation, not speculation on motivation. Opabinia regalis 03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose (Changed from Support) I voted without thinking and with some thinking, I changed my mind. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I'm sorry but, per other opposers. Cbrown1023 talk 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, I'm convinced by the oppose arguments here. Take Opabinia regalis' advice - move away from the political aspects of the community and contribute to articles, and feel free to try again at some point. --Coredesat 03:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Sorry, huge lack of experience in countervandalism for someone who would like to help at WP:RFPP and even WP:AIV. Also low mainspace count, and I can recall finding this user rather unreasonable during discussions sometimes.--Húsönd 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. The Wikipedia-space stuff is good, but there are various areas you are lacking experience in (especially the mainspace). --- RockMFR 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, disproportionately high focus on deletion review. — CharlotteWebb 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Very Strong Oppose per Blnguyen doesn't do no article writing or even cleanup, all he does is work with wikipedia policies all the time Jaranda wat's sup 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I just feel that with 837 mainspace edits, and 3184 WP edits, this editor simply doesn't have the experience with actually writing an encyclopaedia to be a useful or trustworthy admin. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Arjun, regarding answer to question 2. Suppositions over what edit count balances mean are one thing, but when you can't even answer what valued contributions you've made (besides a somewhat sarcastic retort), we've got our answer. Also, your nomination acceptance seems possibly a little arrogant, and the nominator apparently doesn't know you very well (again, per answer #2) -- Renesis (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong oppose Advocates Category:Child Wikipedians,[3],[4],[5], [6] is unmoved by personal attacks,[7] takes an incautious approach to BLP,[8] supports keeping attack page of a banned user[9]... The common theme is a relentless indifference to the potential effects of Wikipedia content on editors and private citizens of any age, justified by an unreflective and legalistic proceduralism. Did I mention almost no mainspace edits except to Pokémon and RuneScape-related articles?Proabivouac 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose huge number of WP space edits but to the detriment of adding to and enhancing the mainspace. I need evidence of encyclopaedia building. The Rambling Man 10:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Based, particularly, on his reasons for opposing other editor's RFA candidacies, I feel Amarkov has a particular problem with assuming good faith. I also note that based on the criteria Amarkov applies to his RFA votes, he would have to oppose his own candidacy (due to his "low percentage of mainspace edits"). I also found the way he passionately defended Category:Child Wikipedians as a great idea (see Proabivouac's diffs, above) very troubling. Proto::► 11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. User is deeply condescending and I don't want to have to put up with that in an admin.Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:11, 13 February 2007
  23. Weak Oppose, like a lot of those who voted support I am a little surprised to see he isn't already an admin. Simply because of how often I see him around on wikipedia (DRV, AfD, etc...). But now that I read this... I can understand why he isn't yet an admin. I felt Mallanox expressed my feelings regarding this very well. And broad abilities require that they have been shown over a broad range. Mathmo Talk 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, unfortunately. I see you everywhere I go in AfDs, RfAs, and policy discussions, but besides having no significant article contributions, I'd have to agree with Dev920 (above) on her point. Sorry. - Anas Talk? 12:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Does not inspire confidence, for reasons amply noted above.--Newport 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Contributions to article writing are not to be underestimated. They give a really good feel of what Wikipedia is about, and the problems the people "on the floor" need to contend with. Without any more with the encyclopedia itself, by this I mean: article writing, there needs to be a huge balancing factor with outstanding and stellar contributions to the other fields and the votes above point to some ill-thought out contributions there as well, even though I think the net effect is positive. I am not sure you have the essence of Wikipedia in your blood yet. Sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I wouldn't go so far as those who advocate WP:1FA, but an admin should have some reasonable encyclopedia-writing history. Hang out and contribute to some articles, then reapply when you've got more experience as an encyclopedist. Coemgenus 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. I seem to oppose a lot of admin candidates based on this, but I really do feel that article writing experience is important for an admin to have. The opposers above have pretty much spelled out whatever I could say, but let me just add this: some experience in writing articles, or at least making substantial contributions to existing articles, will broaden your experience, and perhaps make you a better admin than you would otherwise be. --Kyoko 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Help the rest of us with writing an encyclopedia and then we'll talk. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose for now - knows policy, fimiliar with process, but since newbies generally loop up to admins for advice on article writing, they should primarily be doing that. -- Selmo (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. I agree w/ Nishkid34, as you should be more well rounded. ~~Magistrand~~ 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. In addition to Blnguyen's concerns above, I have found your manner to be unnecessarily discourteous at times, example. Administrators should be models of good manners, and being polite in neutral territory like WP:RFA is the first step-- how would you respond to much more stressful confrontations that admins must sometimes deal with? Dar-Ape 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose - Sorry but I have to oppose this time round. I was going to support, but then I read the opposing arguements & checked out your edit count & thought better of it. My number 1 pet peeve is admins who get adminship despite lack of mainspace edits. I personally don't care if article writers don't need the tools given from adminship, I think an admin should be well rounded. Your lacking response for question 2 is far too obvious & despite what seems a good knowledge of the Wikipedia policies etc, you lack totally any article writing edits. I would definitely support you in a few months after you rack up some experience in the article writing area. Sorry, but as I said, oppose... Spawn Man 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Strong Oppose Per the points of Blnguyen and Nishkid64. You spend far too much time caught up in the burecracy of Wikipedia instead of editing the mainspace. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. Amarkov, I have seen few editors elevate Wiki-burecracy to the artform that you have. I will be able to endorse your adminship in the future if and only if your article edits are at least three times as large as your mainspace ones and you have taken up tasks in which Administrator tools would be directly useful to you. On a lighter note, if you ever plan to go into politics.... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Um... article edits three times as large as my mainspace ones? I think you mistyped, could you clarify what you want? -Amarkov moo! 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Of course, making demands about proportions of edits for various namespaces is a ridiculous concept because it means that good contributions in the Wikipedia mainspace makes you a worse candidate, and that is absurd. But the idea that you should have some experience with writing articles or substantially improving existing ones is valid. You get to view the policies from an entirely different perspective when you work with articles, for instance it is very easy to criticize article writers when they don't adhere to WP:WEASEL, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:MOS and so on, but you will understand better why this happens when you are actually forced to work with those policies and guidelines yourself. And you will also be in a much better position to advise newer users on how to work with this if you have some experience with article writing, and for an administrator who people will look up to, that is pretty important. I by no means demand that you write featured articles or even good articles. But some reasonably sized articles where you get to experience the difficulties in tracking down sources, evaluating their reliability, and citing them is what I think is valuable. After handing in my admin buttons a few months ago I have done some more work with the article writing, and I can tell you, I have learned plenty from doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm well aware of that opinion, and while I disagree, I'm willing to accept it. But obviously, not everyone shares it, so I want to know what they expect too. -Amarkov moo! 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Oppose Not satisfied at all with the answer to question 2. Dionyseus 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Apparently took the "Child Wikipedians" category deletion to heart and handled it horribly. I saw wikilawyering, incivility, responses to anyone who supported its deletion, etc... It basically shows a lack of self-constraint when one can not stop themselves from acting in such a way. And since it just happened in late December it can not be overlooked.--Jersey Devil 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Oppose On the available evidence, I am not convinced that his use of the tools would improve the project.--R613vlu 12:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Oppose How can a user be trusted to know when to and when not to protect pages during content disputes if he has not participated in article writing enough to understand the various factors involved? In addition, I am of the opinion that the user should spend at least some time directly contributing to the encyclopedia, even if they only make minor edits, as that is why we are here. Regardless, purely involving oneself in the bureaucratic areas of Wikipedia does not sufficiently provide the breadth of experience necessary for me to fully trust them with the admin powers.--Dycedarg ж 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  • #Not particularly convinced by some arguments (usually at DRV, I think) I've seen from you, but you're a good editor, so I hold no particular opinion. – Chacor 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Remaining neutral in this issue, as the user usually AGF, but seems a bit too controlling. Once turned around, would have no problem supporting. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 10:37, 14 February 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.