Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov 2


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

Amarkov
(talk page) (18/24/4); Ended 21:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it's quite clear that people simply will not support me for adminship without a higher proportion of mainspace edits to projectspace edits. Ratio of edits is an absurd criterion, but whatever. I won't be an admin, but don't expect me to change unless I actually end up blocked for "not contributing to the encyclopedia", which isn't going to happen. I don't lose out on anything by not being an admin. -Amarkov moo! 21:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Wow, this question is shorter now. Anyway, there are various things. I intend to help with the CSD backlog, of course (with exceptions as laid out in the next paragraph). Also, I'll do some XfD closing (which I do a bit already, actually). WP:RFPP, as my first watchlisted page ever, will also get some attention. I'll help at the chronically backlogged AWB approvals page, too. And of course, I'll help out people who ask me if I feel competent to do so.


 * There are some admin work I won't do. I won't deal with sockpuppetry or 3RR cases (using admin powers, of course I'll still comment as an editor if I have something to say), since my experiences have shown me I don't have very good judgement there. I also won't deal with all but the most clear-cut image issues until I have more experience with image policy. -Amarkov moo! 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: This is an awkward question for me. Most of my contributions are in the form of discussion, which makes it hard to rank one as the "best". I've written a essay, which has been sporked into Portugese now, and that's really the only thing I can point to and say "Look, a contribution by me!" With a more liberal definition, though, my best contributions are those dealing with the strange blindness we used to have in regard to Pokemon articles. "There are no substantial secondary sources at all, you say? But it's a POKEMON, so it should be a featured article if we can cite enough primary sources and product listings!" Now, the merge that people kept talking about but never doing is a reality, and there are no more featured articles on Pokemon species. Definitely a lot of progress. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 29 June 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: I've obviously been in conflicts before, the way I edit kinda assures that. In the past, I used to deal with that by arguing with everyone until I got tired and went away from the computer, but that is definitely not smart. I now have a philosophy that prevents almost any stress from affecting me. If I start getting stressed over something on Wikipedia, I log off and go do something else. Wikipedia is a hobby; something I do in my spare time because I feel like it. And I absolutely refuse to let my hobbies stress me. I can take quite a bit without really being stressed, but when I start feeling angry about something on Wikipedia, I've been on for too long. -Amarkov moo! 05:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 4 - optional question How do you feel you have changed in your approach to Wikipedia since your last RFA? Other than the controversial WP:CHILD debate, what else is different? I'm just trying to get a feel for how you personally feel you've addressed some of those issues -  A l is o n  ☺ 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Well, I've convinced myself a lot more that Wikipedia is not a big deal, which should make me less aggressive in disputes. I also don't mindlessly follow the crowd as much (I used to assume that any layout guideline was inherently good as-is, because look at how many people seem to support it!). Other than that, I don't really know that I can point to specific improvements, just say that I've gotten more experience. -Amarkov moo! 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question from Nat.tang
 * 5. If you ran into an extreme POV pusher and he/she was not committing any obvious, or "simple" vandalism, what steps or actions would you take to deal with this person?
 * A: Well, first I'd have to convince myself that they were honestly trying to POV push, so I'd discuss with them what they are doing. Then, I would try to explain to them that Wikipedia is bound by WP:NPOV, and POV pushing will get them blocked. If they weren't convinced, I would get someone else to look into the situation and try to resolve it. If that didn't work either, I'd try an RfC. Hopefully, if that was unsucessful, someone else would see the situation and deal with it, because I'm not willing to make myself go through arbitration. -Amarkov moo! 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A question from bainer (talk)
 * 6. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
 * A: When it prevents you from maintaining or improving the encyclopedia... but that's not really a helpful answer, is it? Anyway, I view IAR as saying "consensus takes precedence over rules". So people can not obstruct consensus by citing a rule. This doesn't mean that consensus on some random article talk page can overrule WP:NOR (global consensus for a rule takes precedence over local consensus against it), and it's not necessary to form consensus before a rule is ignored, you just need to be reasonably certain that consensus will support your action if someone disputes it. Of course, under no circumstances can Foundation policy or the law be ignored because consensus is against it, and BLP can only be ignored if you convince people that the letter of the policy is contradicting the spirit. -Amarkov moo! 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your response would have be more plausible if you appeared to know anything about "maintaining or improving the encyclopedia", rather than parroting the policy pages with which you are evidently (and possibly unhealthily) more familiar. —freak(talk) 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question by AldeBaer
 * 7. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
 * A:. Okay then.
 * Quark. I understand quantum physics to some extent, but in most cases, any symbolic notation just completely loses me. This article managed to still have the symbolic notation while remaining understandable. I still prefer Feynman's explanations, but I definitely appreciate knowing the symbols.
 * Astronomer vs Amateur. Through some quirk, this page, despite being off in limbo until a month ago, was one of the first essays I read, and it's still funny. Humor is good.
 * Rouge admin. Combines lots and lots of humor with more humor. Humor is still good.
 * So I like reading humor better than reading serious stuff. Sue me. -Amarkov moo! 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absurd rhetorical question, don't bother answering it
 * 8. Scenario: Brion Vibber announces that there's been a massive (and possibly pre-meditated) database failure, and that all pages except for articles (plus the portion of templates/categories which are critical to article appearance) have been irretreivably lost. Explain how you would feel, and how you would respond to this crisis (or non-crisis as the case may be). —freak(talk) 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical answer: What, salting of the pages wasn't hardcoded into the CPU of every server too? This absurd scenario needs more work. -Amarkov moo! 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me simplify it. If there was no "project space" to wonk around in, would you begin contributing more to article space, or just quit the project? —freak(talk) 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not contribute significantly more to articlespace, but I might maintain my low level of editing there. I don't think it's really relevant, though, because we're far past the point where Wikipedia can exist stably without a back end of projectspace. -Amarkov moo! 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Amarkov:

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

Discussion

 * consensus not numbers I agree with Blnguyen. Amarkov's editing profile is so slight that it is barely appropriate to describe him as a Wikipedian.  He is not a suitable candidate for adminship at the moment. --Tony Sidaway 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if this fails because of that, at least it's not because of some stupid thing I did recently. Just know that I'm not likely to change. -Amarkov moo! 13:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose, then their is no point in having this RfA. You might withdraw as well. There is a huge difference between "opening oneself to criticism" and "accepting criticism". — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing this because I want feedback (although that's a nice side effect), I'm doing it because I wish to be able to help out better with admin tools. I'd be wasting everyone's time if I just intended this as editor review. -Amarkov moo! 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to those editors who are opposing on the basis of "less mainspace edits" and "bureaucratic character", don't we all support those who revert vandalism from articles and have tonnes of mainspace edits but rarely make editorial contributions to them? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no point to recording a !vote here but I suggest the candidate take a look at digging into some serious article editing before running again. There is a whole side of the encyclopedia (the vastly more important side, if you ask me) that you haven't learned about. --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's more important, and I think most people would agree. But it's not that I haven't learned about it; I've learned about it and I just don't care for editing it that much. -Amarkov moo! 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: All those who make an argument that this is an encyclopedia, please note: An encyclopedia requires more than just authors, editors and proof readers. A lot happens behind the scenes without which Wikipedia will end up a mass of incoherence and collapse over itself. Ideas and discussion are important in building an online collaborative encyclopedia as opposed to a paper encyclopedia. To those who argue that he does not have the understanding to deal with mainspace articles, it all boils down to editcountitis. If ~1000 good edits to mainspace do not give a reasonable understanding, well, I don't know what to say. - Two  Oars  09:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The opposers' line of argument consists of: No, we can't trust this guy with a mop, because he already spends too much time scrubbing floors, rather than constructing new extensions to the building (which, by the way, is already so big that no one can find their way around it). As TwoOars points out, if all Wikipedians spent all their time writing articles, the place would fall apart. There's lots of maintenance work, policy discussion, and other areas that are equally as essential as article-writing. Just because someone works behind the scenes doesn't mean their work isn't valuable. Waltontalk 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, hope my comments aren't taken as any sort of disrespect for the behind the scenes work that happens at Wikipedia. I just want the people behind the scenes to have a firm grounding on the front line or the main stage or whatever analogy we're using.  When a wikignome is running for adminship, the mop may be an appropriate analogy.  But is it the best analogy here?  I'm not so sure.  Sometimes admins mop up; but sometimes they have to enforce policies.  And when that latter aspect of adminship comes into play, I want someone with an active enthusiasm for the encyclopedia's main space as demonstrated by wikignomery, or vandalism fighting, or article writing or just statements more encouraging than "...it's not that I haven't learned about it; I've learned about it and I just don't care for editing it that much." --JayHenry 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support per my comments last time, and kudos for the new desire to close XfDs.--Chaser - T 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongest possible support Amarkov, in my estimation, approaches every issue he encounters here in a decidedly deliberative and and rational fashion, and he has demonstrated every quality&mdash;a cordial and civil demeanor, a respect for and understanding of the will of the community as generally set forth in policy, and a profound capacity well to divine from a discussion for what course of action a consensus lies&mdash;one should be pleased to find in a prospective admin. Pace Blnguyen, I continue to believe that the frequency with which one contributes to mainspace is altogether irrelevant to his fitness for adminship (at least where one is not entirely ignorant of our practices in mainspace, which doesn't appear to be the case here), and I see nothing to suggest that Amarkov is unnecessarily process-oriented (to understand adminship as ministerial and to recognize that an admin acts only to effect the courses of action for which a consensus of the community exists is not to be process-wonkish; it is to recognize the collaborative spirit that of course underlies all we do here).  I am as confident as ever I have been about a candidate that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive.  Joe 05:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I can already foresee that this request is likely to crash and burn, so I'll treat this as an opportunity for a de facto editor review. I would place Amarkov in an elite category with User:Jared, User:MER-C, User:IZAK and a few others as the "most dedicated Wikipedians who will probably never become administrators for one reason or another."  He has devoted many hours to discussing various administrative issues regarding Wikipedia process, and whenever a policy adjustment is proposed, we can often count on him for a well-considered opinion.  The problem is now, as before, a question of scope and perspective.  For all the productive work Amarkov does, he doesn't write articles.  I can't force him to do what he doesn't want to do, but I'd like to see at a minimum a devotion to cleanup projects if not writing your own material.  (Indeed, most of my current content editing involves cleaning up other people's mistakes and omissions.)  Now I'm willing to let that go.  Amarkov has been here for so many months, and knows Wikipedia policy with such thoroughness, that a deficiency in the central aspect of Wikipedia is not a deal-breaker for me.  I'm willing to give him the admin bit and let him knock off some CSD items, and on the assumption that this won't actually happen, I encourage him to continue the good fight against WP:NOT violations. Shalom Hello 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support after a lot of thought. I had this page watchlisted, because I knew I was going to support. However, after re-reading the previous one, I had to re-evaluate. I have the controversial view that adminship is only a bureaucratic position. Being an admin doesn't mean you can write articles better, find sources easier, or copy edit well. It means you can deal with the rules, policies, and maintenance of Wikipedia. As such, I think that the fact he has spent so much effort in policy will make him a great admin, since that shows he has a very thorough knowledge of policy. With that knowledge, I seriously doubt he will abuse the tools. Sure, it would be better if he had edited mainspace more, but he hasn't neglected it. All of this considered, I support. A lcemáe   T  •  C  06:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Being an admin doesn't empower you to become a better writer, but having experience in writing articles means that you will be better at working out who is gaming the system when they are violating NPOV, RS, V etc, and helps you to understand how to intervene in a more efficient and helpful manner. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that his policy dicussion in those areas would also give him understanding. However, I agree that nothing can be fully as informing as article writing, but he is not totally deficient in that area. I do understand your point, but again, the information that article writing can give is not the only experience an admin will need or use. A lcemáe   T  •  C  07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support - would probably use the tools wisely. Regardless, this isn't going to pass, accordingly I suggest you withdraw. If following your involvement in pokemon, you're looking for a new challenge, then I suggest you consider joining a wikiproject, for example unreferenced articles is looking for new members. Addhoc 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support OK, in an ideal world the user would not have 4000 WP edits vs. 1000 mainspace edits. But, 1000 isn't very few and far more importantly, I trust this user to do the right thing, they will be an admin at some point so what's the point in delaying it based on edit count? GDonato (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - The opposers are being extremely uncivil, and some of them (mentioning no names) should be reprimanded. Bureaucratic attitude? That's not an editor, that's a bureaucratic nightmare?! How exactly can you judge that? No one's provided any diffs. And having a high mainspace count is not needed for adminship. Yes, admins should have some idea about what Wikipedia is for, and should have some contributions to articles. But not everyone is a massive FA-writer. That doesn't mean that maintenance contributions and discussion are not valuable contributions. Waltontalk 14:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I really don't see how nearly 1000 mainspace edits could be considered low.  Candidate seems to be getting nailed for having a disproportionately large Wikipedia space editcount and that kind of confuses me.  Yeah, we're trying to build an encyclopedia and yes, the primary way to do so is with mainspace edits.  Some folks, however, may feel their contributions to the policy framework and background processes are more valuable to the project than thier frontline contributions, and I fail to see how that dilutes one's value to the project overall.  My interactions with this editor ahve all been positive.  His contributions to Wikipedia have been valuable.  I will support.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) We are here to build an encyclopedia, but I do not think that should be the deciding factor for whether a user should become an administrator or not.  Amarkov clearly could use the tools; he already does plenty of administrative stuff.  I'm surprised that people are so vehemently opposed to him, and mostly (from what I can see) based upon philosophical reasons.  Please, people, look past personal differences; Amarkov may be "bureaucratic", but will that negatively affect Wikipedia if he were an administrator?  I think not.  Amarkov may not contribute much to articles, but will that negatively affect Wikipedia if he were an administrator?  I think not.  Because there seems, to me, to be no negative effect of sysopping Amarkov, and yet many positive effects, I will support the bureucrat who sysops him (though I will accept if he or she decides to not to sysop Amarkov).  Cheers, Iamunknown 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you've (unintentionally) raised a very important point there - although I strongly support this RfA, and I think Amarkov would be a fantastic admin, I would still strongly criticise a bureaucrat who decided to sysop someone with fewer Supports than Opposes at RfA. Community consensus overrides any one person's opinion - whether it's mine, yours, or the bureaucrat's. Waltontalk 18:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, anyone who's willing to tackle the Pokemon mess should certainly be considered for adminship, and I'm disappointed to see so many editcountitis (as opposed to genuine behavioral issue) opposes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A dead tree encyclopedia has two primary roles - authors and editors.  Editors impose quality control, determine what makes the grade and what gets cut.  Here, Amarkov has been focused on the editorial role, not the authorial role.  Wikipedians confuse themselves by using one name for both roles.  Admins need to be good at the editorial decisions even more than they are at authorship.  Amarkov has been dedicated, as his contributions show, to editorial work on Wikipedia.  And succeeding with the Pokemon mess shows that he is good at it.  I am aware of nothing in his history to make me distrust him with the tools that would facilitate editing, and have seen enough to think he would be a good user of those tools. GRBerry 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support this is one rare editor I would support with so few mainspace edits. This guy can be trusted with the tools. If he prefers to process-wonk instead of write I will not hold it against him. -N 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Some of the issues raised in the opposes are certainly legitimate, but I trust that this user would use admin tools productively and within the areas of his experience and interest. Newyorkbrad 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Newyorkbrad's reasoning. Acalamari 21:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - a thousand-ish mainspace edits is sufficient for a reasonable understanding of the editing process for an editor otherwise very familiar with the policies and guidelines. Here's a guy who clearly wants to do admin work, and people want to oppose - but take someone who has no intention of doing it - it'd be oppose as well. Really, adminship is no big deal, every new admin will make a misstep or two, but there's no notable danger in giving Amarkov sysop access.  So why not? Wily D  21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I think this user has plenty of mainspace edits. Isn't 962 enough? What concern is a percentage in this case? As for attitude, I have seen no problems and it does not seem to be a concern to me. I will support. Captain   panda  05:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) SupportAll that matters is that he does not abuse the tools. And I am appalled at the tone some of the opposers dared to take on this RfA. Remember that no one is getting anything material from contributing to Wikipedia. Being civil to fellow volunteers is the basis on which Wikipedia runs and I am not sure how people who do not realise this became admins nor how they deem themselves fit enough to judge another editor. Amarkov is not asking any of us for favors and in fact is doing Wikipedia a favor. At the rate Wikipedia is growing, we need all kinds of contributors, from specialists in article writing to specialists in the policy side, to those who know a bit of both (the so-called "well rounded" editors). Ideas are as important for the survival of Wikipedia as content. And I commend Amarkov for his principled stand in not stooping to jump through a few arbitrarily set hoops just so he can pass this RfA when he could have easily done so. - Two  Oars  06:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Clearly, if this RfA is just taken as a vote, it is, as of now, going to fail. But it should not be taken as a vote. Granted, this editor has slightly less than one thousand mainspace edits. But it cannot be argued that he has a deep, fundamental understanding of wiki-policy, would not abuse the tools, would use them well and would make an excellent admin. A good admin should, certainly, be ablr to edit articles; Amarkov can, and has. But the principle function of an admin is to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, and it cannot be argued that he will do that. Are there any bureaucrats prepared to bend the guidelines?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Very strong oppose - The user has a very bureaucratic attitude and this has only gotten worse since last time. About 120 mainspace edits in the last four months since the last RfA out of about 2500 edits. 4% mainspace edits isn't even funny. At least before the last RfA it was about 12%. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Diffs on the bureaucratic attitude, Blnguyen?--Chaser - T 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, see the last RfA and its content, and the edit log since then, which shows that he has become even more bureaucratic since then. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And the answer to Q2 is highly revealing as it was last time.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for asking but what exactly is a "bureaucratic attitude"? Honestly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Surely, we're all grateful for editors that take the time to participate in XfDs and those that still have the patience to be active on policy talk pages. Now I don't claim to know Amarkov's contributions so well and it may be that his work in those areas doesn't inspire confidence or demonstrates flaws that would make him a bad admin but the simple statistic of mainspace edits divided by total edits feels like a poor indicator. We routinely give the sysop bit to users whose mainspace contributions are almost entirely vandal-fighting, provided that their history demonstrates sound judgement, knowledge of core policies and ability to communicate with other users. Now if you think Amarkov doesn't have those qualities, please do make that point rather than just cite some %. Pascal.Tesson 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see how mainspace edits are at all relevant to adminship I don't think he retracted that since last time. From his edit log since the last RfA, it seems as though he feels even more strongly about this....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above comments. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Sorry, if your best contributions are making sure that no Pokemon species articles are featured any longer, I'm afraid that my concern from the last RFA stands: lack of mainspace contributions. This by itself is not a deal-breaker since several excellent admins have a relatively sparse mainspace contribution history, but for someone who makes several critiques of other articles, it is healthy to gain some experience with real article writing before you take a position where you will manage the "blue-collars". Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The concerns about lack of actual participation in the encyclopaedia were raised by almost everyone opposing in the last nomination, and it doesn't seem that the candidate had done much about this. The silly nomination acceptance gag doesn't fill me with confidence that this candidate is taking this seriously. --bainer (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Lack of mainspace contributions. --Folantin 07:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose — Sorry but the mainspace is the most important thing at Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, after all. Matthew 07:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -- per Matthew above.  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Sorry but I have to agree with Blnguyen. With an sense of bureaucracy, and 4% mainspace contribution, I am reluctant to support. -- Dark Falls   talk 08:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Amarkov is seen everywhere, in XfDs, policy discussions and RfAs, but unfortunately his lack of mainspace activity and contributions leaves me in doubt of whether he can deal with controversial article issues. Quite frankly, I also agree with Blnguyen. — An as  talk? 09:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) There's a lot to be said about essays. Most of them are intended to suck anyway. They usually lack teeth, are fairly easy, and when you get done releasing all that creative energy you feel like you've really accomplished something. However, when phrased in terms like these, the difference between an essay... and say, a crack whore... becomes difficult to measure. I've got my own little essay of my own that I've been wanting to write for a very long time, but I never did, because I couldn't come up with more than four words to it, and because never before had I so powerfully felt the need to say this: shut up and edit. —freak(talk)</tt> 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense meant, but could you tone down the words a little bit? -- Dark Falls  talk 09:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense meant, but they're not directed at you. —<tt>freak(talk)</tt> 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but people might get upset when someone tells them to "shut up and edit". But who am I to judge... -- Dark Falls  talk 10:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent question which only you can answer, only I'm not particularly interested in hearing it. I have no further comment. —<tt>freak(talk)</tt> 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am not particularly interested in hearing incredibly rude comments. You are required to "keep criticism constructive and polite". You should well know that WP:IAR doesn't apply to WP:CIVIL.-- Hús  ö  nd  13:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - 4.78 Wikipedia namespace edits for every 1 main namespace edit. That's not an editor, it's a bureaucratic pain in the ass. How can you possibly comment on RfAs or make reports to ANI when you never edit ? I can only wholeheartedly recommend that this user "Shuts up and edits". Sorry. Nick 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, please observe WP:CIVIL.-- Hús  ö  nd  14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the tone of the previous two opposes is definitely not necessary. We're all volunteers here and no one signs up to be addressed in this manner. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per Blnguyen, sorry.-- Hús  ö  nd  14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Sorry, but I have to agree with the comments made by Blnguyen. Nat Tang talk to me! 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Terribly sorry, but remember, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I didn't want to say this, because he has the potential to be a very good admin. But one of the qualities is understanding the attitudes and perspective of those who edit articles, in order to really see how policy decisions and article decisions at AfD affect them.  Not that it would cause one to sympathize with bad articles, but it would increase one's understanding of how to deal with those who write them, and to know when it's feasible to improve an article and when the practical course is to remove it. I would have been neutral, except for the expressed unwillingness to improve in an area that most WPedians think to be important. DGG 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Blnguyen. In my oppose in his last RfA, I noted that Amarkov was far too bureaucratic and rarely contributed to the encyclopedia. His time in the mainspace is even more limited now, and he seems to come to Wikipedia solely to edit Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk pages (Wikipedia may be a place for discussion, but it shouldn't be used as a forum). Nishkid64 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose it's not editcountitis to expect that administrators of an encyclopedia have an interest in writing an encyclopedia. This is nothing personal against Amarkov, who seems to be a civil and intelligent participant.  But his interests would perhaps be better suited to administration of a discussion forum somewhere; this is an encyclopedia. --JayHenry 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose insufficient experience where it counts. Tim! 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I'm sorry. Your answer to my optional question was not the one I expected & can see that you haven't taken to heart the lessons you could have learnt from your previous RfA. Sorry - A l is o n  ☺ 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose in my last oppose I wrote, "User is deeply condescending and I don't want to have to put up with that in an admin." I still hold to that: every comment I have ever seen from Amarkov around Wikipedia has been either sarcastic, aggressive, or plain mean. I don't feel particularly comfortable opposing anyone on RfA, but Amarkov really should never be made an admin. His attitude so far does not suggest he would be an overall positive asset with the tools. I would also like to point out to the opposers above that "shut up and edit" is far worse than Amarkov has ever come out with, and you should be ashamed of yourselves being so incivil to someone who has exposed himself to the community for judgement. Must you compound his failure with hurtful words? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Blnguyen. While my interactions with Amarkov have been positive, it seems grossly unfair to promote an admin with a mainspace edit count percentage in single digits. Blueboy96 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean triple digits.--Chaser - T 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, meant to say percentage ... Blueboy96 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for a variety of reasons stated above me.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 01:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per all the reasons above. Hello? wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Hirohisat  <sup style="color:green; font-family:vivaldi;">Freedom of Speech  03:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I was planning on remaining neutral to the discussion above, but your answer to Q.2 raised a flag. On another note, you're extremely hostile and overly confrontational. You have blunt phrases such as "Sue me" and others like "This absurd scenario needs more work." You need to learn to be courteous, to say the least. Furthermore, this is an Encyclopedia, and, not to be rude, but if you're only proud of an Essay and have little interest in anything but discussion, then you should not be an administrator. NSR 77  T C  18:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Pending further development. I recognise the validity of both the opposers' and the supporters' reasonings. —AldeBaer (c) 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I'd also like to wait. Both the opposing and the supporting side have good points, and Amarkov really is one of the those controversial editors. Pending.  bibliomaniac 1 5  [ [User:Bibliomaniac15/Enlarge your edit count 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. No real opinion on this RfA, but just a little gnomish article editing can go a long way towards getting people to like you. Surely there's something you're interested in, Amarkov? I mean, I don't contribute large chunks of writing the way I used to (although I hope to return to that, either here or perhaps on the Portuguese Wikipedia once my command of the language improves) but I look up random things and fix articles as I go, a little bit here and there. It does help one spot irregularities and sneaky vandalism and stuff like that. Also, it's rather unfortunate that a couple of people, in their enthusiasm to oppose this RfA, have forgotten the very qualities of productive communication that they are asking of the candidate. Grand  master  ka  00:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - I'm torn on this one. It is possible that mainspace edits should not have played such a prominent roll as the did in Amarkov's first RfA. However, we are left with the fact that they did and within the 38 opposes in the first there was a consensus that Amarkov should strive for more mainspace experience and article-writing between February 2007 (RfA#1 end) and this RfA#2. I do not think that Amarkov should change his personal views in response to the consensus in his RfA, however I think it important that Amarkov evidenced some efforts in recognition of that consensus and the others consensuses contained in his first RfA. I would like to move to supporting this RfA, but am looking for more clarification to Q4. Basically, what do you believe the reasons your RfA#1 was unsuccessful and, as Alison posted in Q4, what steps have you taken to address some of those reasons? --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually know why my first RfA was unsucessful. From the results here, it seems that it was unsucessful because of my lack of mainspace edits, but with the WP:CHILD issue, I couldn't really tell. As I said (or at least, implied), I've looked over my conduct in that issue and worked on becoming less confrontational. The other major issue is my lack of mainspace edits, which I will not change because other people think I should. -Amarkov moo! 16:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After further review, I think you correctly perceived the main issue in your RfA#1 was your confrontation style. However, I think the RfA#1 needs-more-mainspace-edits consensus was set up in your RfA#1 as a way to now measure whether you in fact have lessened your confrontation style. In response, you only added 126 edits to your 837 mainspace edits over the past 4 month and expressed in this RfA#2 that you will not increase your percentage of mainspace edits. I think some are seeing this as your maintaining a hostile opposition to the RfA#1-more-mainspace-edits consensus and this hostile opposition does not show a lessening of your confrontation style. In other word, I do not think this relates to giving you a better perspective when discussing policy issues. I think it is a way to measure whether you have reduced your confrontation style. The RfA#1 consensus request that you make more mainspace edits is not hostile and very inline with why we all are here - to support the encyclopedia. However, I think what people are looking at is your response to that consensus request. You indicate that it merely was some individuals requesting it and dismissed their requests on an individual basis. However, their opinions were bound together in a consensus through the formal opening and formal closing of RfA#1. The opposition in this RfA#2 once again is repeating the same make-more-mainspace-edits-to-better-appreciate-policy request . It is an odd request since you have 9,401 total edits. However, you really have to ask yourself why are so many good editors opposing with this odd request. My guess is that people are not yet ready to forgive your past confrontations. They are trying to force you into doing something you stated that you would not do (e.g. increase your percentage of mainspace edits) in opposition of something that you want (Admin). They have set up an impossible request for you to keep (impossible/improbable for you since your views oppose main space edits) all to keep you from becoming an admin. Again, you really have to ask yourself why. I agree with you that more mainspace edits on your part is not the answer to your succeeding at RfA. Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.. Your confrontation style has left a lot of hurt feelings to the point where many people are not even willing to tell you what is wrong. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I believe that your course of action will need to work on trust/understanding/forgiveness with those in the opposition to your RfA and those lurkers who would expressly oppose your RfA if the percentage was much closer to 70%. If you regain trust/understanding/forgiveness from these editors before your RfA#3, I believe that you will see the conditional request that you make more mainspace edits disappear from your RfA and your RfA likely will be successful. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)