Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmaik

drmaik

Voice your opinion (1/7/1); Scheduled to end 08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

drmaik (talk · contribs) - I've been on wikipedia since December 2005, mainly editing language-related articles, in particular related to Arabic.

It seems that I have no support (the extent of this does surprise me), and it seems almost certain that I will be denied. However, a few points on why I think this is... a little bit worrying

as for edit count, I live in Kenya, do not have a great internet link, not always on - should living in the developing world exclude one from adminship?

surely the quality of what one does (I've never been told off by an admin, never violated a policy that anyone's told me), rather than the volume should count: if I did not understand wikipedia policies, this would not be the case. That surely is eveidence rather than whether I've been in the wikipedia-prefixed area. I would like to be able to use admin tools, and believed that 13 months proper usage might generate some confidence in my trustworthiness, which is surely the no.1 issue.

BTW, I Haven't issued vandal warnings becasue I do not have the teeth to follow them up, but I frequently come across vandalised pages which have remained so for several hours. I guess I still won't be able to do anything but revert. Added after self nominationDrmaik 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Drmaik 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept this self nomination! Drmaik 09:06, 1 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: I do a reasonable amount of reverting, and being an administrator should help with this, as well as being able to block vandals and protect (or more likely semi protect) pages suffering a lot of vandalism/ edit warring.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I've significantly expanded Tunisian Arabic (there's still lots to do), added a couple of sections to Arabic language, and have recently started Ethnologue list of most spoken languages, as a consistently referenced alternative to the very messy and unstable List of languages by number of native speakers. I've also added a few references to some linguistics pages, which I believe to be important.

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: Yes, there have been some conflicts, most recently in Ethnologue list of most spoken languages and List of languages by number of native speakers. I have been challenging some unreferenced edits, and trying to gain consensus on the talk page (e.g. concerning whether to count Arabic as one or several languages) rather than always reverting when I don't agree. I attempt to be clear and polite to those I disagree with, and make the reason for the disagreement the point of discussion. I have never been drawn into making personal insults (at least on the screen!)

General comments

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support for the purpose of responding to the candidate's good-faith concerns above. I write not to provide "moral support" in a patronizing way, but to tell this contributor that his contributions to Wikipedia are valued and that we hope he will continue. From my vantage point, edit counts per se are not what is critical, but administrators need to be familiar with the various Wikipedia processes they will be overseeing, and from that point of view, the opposers' desire to see "more Wikipedia space" edits is understandable. As I say, I hope to see you around the project and look forward to hopefully supporting more definitively in another RfA in due course. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose based on use of popups to revert my reversion of your at-the-time-nonexistant RFA. Furthermore, you only have, at this time, including edits to this RFA, 16 Wikipedia-space edits, which is not enough for me to believe you have enough knowledge of policy to handle the tools. – Chacor 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

   Just to say I reverted as the simplest way to link correctly to the admin request which had a capitalisation inconsistency, and which did work. Drmaik 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose- 16 Wikipedia space edits? Get more and I'll support, but not now. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)09:51, Thursday, February 1 '07
3. Oppose - low activity, almost no Wikipedia space edits, no need for the tools yet. Sorry, try again in six months with a bunch more WP edits. The Rambling Man 10:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose, low number of Wikipedia space edits, lacks of experience, don't see the need for the tools yet. Try again later. Terence Ong 12:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose, virtually no non-mainspace edits.--Wizardman 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Less than fifty user Talk and policy space edits eachs shows that you have little experience in admin-related tasks such as vandal fighting and associated warnings or a demonstrable knowledge of policies and guidelines as applied to XfD discussions or deletion reviews. I suggest immediate withdrawal of this RfA and that you submit another application in six months' time when you have worked on these and other admin-related tasks in addition to contributing to the main article space. (aeropagitica) 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose for now. I need more WP-space edits (at least 500), and a stronger need for administrator tools. Cheers. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I think you mean well, but I suggest you withdraw and get a few more months of experience, especially in the Wikipedia: space.-- danntm ^T _C 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)