Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmaik


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

Drmaik
(5/13/10); ended Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:29 (UTC)

- I've been on wikipedia since December 2005, mainly editing language-related articles, in particular related to Arabic. Drmaik 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 nomination Drmaik 17:26, 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)


 * Withdrawal by candidate here

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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!)

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

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)
 * 2) Moral Support You have good inentions, but I feel that you don't have a need for the tools and the other items mentioned below. I suggest you withdraw this and get more active in the Wikipedia: namespace and administrative tasks (WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV...). Cbrown1023 talk 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Has addressed "low" edit count and has shown how ultra high edit count standard can be culturally biased. No basis in WP policy to require vandal warnings, may often be wiser not to.Edivorce 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support A good contributor, who can surely be trusted; he has a slightlydifferent perspective from those of us in the developed world, but isn't a little diversity a good thing?--Runcorn 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support You're a good contributor, and there is no chance of misuse of tools. Although this rfa isn't going to succeed, I think you have what it takes to be a good admin. More projectspace participation will alleviate the opposers' concerns - in particular, xfd participation is something you might focus on. Picaroon 01:58, 5 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)
 * 1) Oppose- 16 Wikipedia space edits? Get more and I'll support, but not now. Jorcoga  ( Hi! / Review )09:51, Thursday, February 1 '07
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Oppose, virtually no non-mainspace edits.-- Wizardman 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) Oppose - the statment about warnings: I Haven't issued vandal warnings becasue I do not have the teeth to follow them up - shows a significant misunderstanding.  Issuing warnings is part of a process, beginning with (if appropriate) a minor warning and escalating to a "final notice", then a block by an admin.  (For vandal-only accounts, the block can happen immediately.)  For an editor to issue a warning requires no "teeth" nor any followup.  If an editor reverts vandalism but fails to post a warning, there can be a delay in either the problem editor deciding to change his/her ways, or a delay in the editor eventually being blocked.  -- John Broughton  (☎☎) 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose reluctantly. Drmaik does a good job but with the sparcity of contribution I can't see him being an admin would help Wikipedia. Malla  nox  00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose I agree with the above comment. You do seem to be doing a good job, however, you simply do not have enough Wiki. edits to show that you deserve adminship.  You're answers could use some attention as well.  Try again in a few months and I think you'll have better success. Gan fon  03:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: Simply not enough edits, try again once you have more contribs. --- Kpavery (talk | contribs) 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose This will be a little long, but please bear with me. Drmaik, there are many reasons why Oppose voters in this RfA would like to see more edits from you before they can offer you their support. A longer and more varied record of contributions would give all of us a better idea of your ability to remain civil under pressure, as well as your understanding of Wikipedia policy. It would also give you added experience in seeing how conflicts arise and how they can be effectively resolved. You have said that the fact that you haven't been blocked is proof enough of your understanding of Wikipedia policy. That knowledge is only a portion of what you will need to know to become an effective admin. As an administrator, you have to know Wikipedia policy well enough to be able to enforce it, and not all of those situations are simply a matter of choosing whether or not to block someone. Administrators must be knowledgeable about, for example, copyright policy and criteria for deleting images and articles, two instances where a simple vandal block is not the answer. Your current record, as well as your stated reasons for not warning vandals, fail to demonstrate sufficient familiarity with Wikipedia policy for me to support you at this time. I would encourage you to continue your article work for now. I also urge you to become more involved in policy and process matters if you are still interested in becoming an administrator in the future. I think you should also increase your use of both article talk and user talk pages as needed, because it is essential for admins to be able to interact with a variety of people. Please don't take these oppose votes as a judgement of you as a person. They are simply a measure of your suitability to become an administrator at this time. I hope your feelings haven't been hurt, and maybe the advice that you've received from everybody will help you become an administrator in the future. I wish you well. --Kyok o 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - 1175 edits, of which 18 are WP space and 35 user talk. If you want to block vandals, I will clearly expect more than that.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  12:48, 4 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)
 * 2) Neutral: I suggest withdrawal at this time. I think that you need more time and experience before becoming an administrator. Cheers, S .D. ¿п?  § 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral rather than oppose, to avoid a pile-on. I see no problem at all with your good faith, and while your total edit-count is very low, I understand your point about internet connection in a developing country. But you have very, very few edits in WP:NAMESPACE, and while you may well have a deep understanding of policy, we cannot know this unless you demonstrate it.--Anthony.bradbury 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I'm not an admin, and I warn users even when their work has already reverted by someone else. If you don't see the point of that, please keep working on Wikipedia. You'll understand soon. Good luck. Xiner (talk, email) 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral no need for tools. Needs more experience and activity in the projectspace. -- A nas '''  Talk? 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and get a few more months of experience. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  18:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Friendly neutral. Nothing personal, just give us some more edits to evaluate your capabilities and I may happily support you in a future RfA. Regards, Kncyu38 11:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Friendly neutral pretty consistent messages here. I expect you are most valuable working on articles for the moment. Johnbod 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) [[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|20px]] Moral Support Neutral per Nybrad. Keep up the good work, you'll get there. Just H 17:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral per above Arfan (Talk) 11:16, 4 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.