Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov

Amarkov

Voice your opinion (13/5/1); Scheduled to end 01:30, 20 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)

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)

General comments

• See Amarkov's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Discussion

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)
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)
9. Support I beat one of the nominators???!?!??!?!?! Cool!!!! Captain panda In vino veritas 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Amarkov's-not-an-admin?-Really? Support. S.D. ¿п? § 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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)

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 importance. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:01, 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. Nishkid64 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)