Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dbachmann (talk | contribs)
227,714 edits
Flooey (talk | contribs)
297 edits
Added support
Line 45: Line 45:
#'''Support''' [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
#'''support''' Usually I would vote neutral due to insufficient edit count (my rule-of-thumb being at 1500-2000). What is swaying me is (a) support from people I respect, (b) the support he is getting ''from the 'other camp' '', so to speak, something all too rarely seen in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, and (c) the fact that I wish to set a counter-weight to what I consider unfounded oppose votes below. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
#'''support''' Usually I would vote neutral due to insufficient edit count (my rule-of-thumb being at 1500-2000). What is swaying me is (a) support from people I respect, (b) the support he is getting ''from the 'other camp' '', so to speak, something all too rarely seen in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, and (c) the fact that I wish to set a counter-weight to what I consider unfounded oppose votes below. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - [[User:Flooey|Flooey]] 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''

Revision as of 19:58, 2 November 2005

Ramallite

Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite|action=edit}} Vote here (30/16/1) ending 12:33 November 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite (talk · contribs) – Ramallite has been editing since June 2, and has made just over 1,000 edits, with a good balance of edits between the main namespace and talk pages. He's contributed a lot to articles about the Arab world, Palestine, and the Arab-Israeli conflict, which are some of the most contentious pages on Wikipedia, yet he's always extremely civil, relaxed, and willing to suggest and agree to concessions. He's gained the respect of all the editors on those pages because of the quality of his work and because he's such a nice person. He's also an excellent writer, and he cares about working within our polices. In fact in every regard, he's exactly the kind of editor who should be an admin, and I'm very pleased he agreed to be nominated. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept - thank you very much. Ramallite (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Generally good use of edit summaries, some anti-vandalism work. I'd have liked to have seen a wider range of articles worked on, but perhaps that's just me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Remarkable editor who undoubtedly will accomplish great things here, regardless of the outcome of this. El_C 15:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Wikipedian of the year. Marsden 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, absolutely. Adheres to policy, very civil to others, a model Wikipedian, we need more like him. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. One of the good guys. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, strongly Huldra 16:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Apoyo con mucho gusto Tomer TALK 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Of course. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Great editor. I trust him and the opinions of him expressed above. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, oppose votes are nit-picking (as is their right), nothing gives me pause in my support opinion Tedernst 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FireFox (RFA) 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Good editor, calm and reasoned, helps provide balance by bringing Palestinian position to articles. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support - Though I read some opposition about his lack of interactivity, I still see Ramallite as a special contributor to the Middle East and articles. -- Svest 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  15. Absolutely. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, with pleasure. Palmiro | Talk 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Stays remarkably civil considering the contentious nature of many of the articles he edits. —Morven 01:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Opposition is almost entirely spurious. Keeping away from Wikipedia namespace is a plus and 250 articles is a very broad contribution. Besides, if Klonimus opposes you, you're probably doing something right. Grace Note 03:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm... am I wrong that in voting on this RFA you've made an edit on Wikipedia namespace? Shame on you! :) Borisblue 05:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing "spurious" about the opposition. WP:NOT, WP:CSD, WP:BIO etc. etc. don't spontaneously pop into your head; you need some experience on the Wiki namespace if I'm to expect you're familiar with them. Marskell 09:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. john k 05:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I must note that we've had a fair share of disagreements but Ramallite had always shown an ability to compromise, good humor and good faith. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I now make it two-thirds in favor. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Unbehagen 15:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Ramallite's talk page, along with the fact that several people who disagreed with him previously are now supporting him, show that this is a user who is capable of constructively discussing controversal issues --Aquillion 21:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good, sensible editor (notwithstanding his personal page). Guy Montag 21:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support This should have nothing to do with his politics/world view --Rogerd 23:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support FeloniousMonk 00:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Yodakii 01:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support and I really like his answer to question 4. Do we expect editors who have a science background to write only about the arts? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good editor with ability to discuss heated topics. --MattWright (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Displays mindboggling ability to remain calm in the face of adversity. --Zero 08:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Goodoldpolonius2 14:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Fadix 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. support Usually I would vote neutral due to insufficient edit count (my rule-of-thumb being at 1500-2000). What is swaying me is (a) support from people I respect, (b) the support he is getting from the 'other camp' , so to speak, something all too rarely seen in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, and (c) the fact that I wish to set a counter-weight to what I consider unfounded oppose votes below. dab (ᛏ) 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Flooey 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Wiki namespace participation just isn't there. Twenty one in the main space and nothing in Talk. Also, a relatively high edits per page avg. of 4.5 means that just two 250 distinct pages edited--this is much too low for me. Edit summaries are there and the quality of edits are good so will certainly support with more experiece. Marskell 15:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please get some familiarity with Wikispace and its processes before considering adminship. Radiant_>|< 16:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Although I'm sure he'll make a great admin soon, I agree with Marskell that I'd like a bit more experience to be certain of this user's judgment. "Better-safe-than-sorry" vote, here. Xoloz 16:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Needs more time and interaction. (Seems like a good guy, though :) --NormanEinstein 17:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per NormanEinstein. freestylefrappe 20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per others. Private Butcher 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose POV issues, and a general lack of maturity and experience in separating personal veiws from article content. I just don't think that Ramalite does anything that needs admin powers. Klonimus 21:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - POV issues, unexperienced - needs more time to prove himself before he should be considered for admin. I'm also skeptical because there appear to be many POV pushers and persons who are prone to cliqueish admin behavior supporting him. Admins should have proven adherence to consensus building and neutrality in disputes, and many giving testimony in support do not have those qualities. Rangerdude 00:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above --JAranda | watz sup 04:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose Not enough edits on wikipedia namespace. Really, you should hang out in WP:FAC, WP:FPC, WP:PR or even in the RFA page, you get to meet loads of people and really get to "experience" wikipedia as a community. The stuff they do there may seem like chores at first, but eventually I think you'll like life in the WP community as much as life in the WP encyclopedia (heck, I hardly edit articles anymore, given the time I spend on WP-space :) I find WP:AFD a little scary myself, but you might like going there as well. I'd support with 100-200 edits in WP-space, and it's not too difficult. Experience WP to the fullest! Borisblue 05:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - POV issues, unexperienced. Ramallite is a nice guy but proven that he has no ability to detach his own POV on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from editing wikipedia. There are subjects (such as abortion and the mideast) who cause most edit war in wikipedia. To make a person with such attachment to one side an admin will be a mistake. He has tried to insert pure propeganda material as "facts" into his edits. Zeq 07:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose, PoV warrior (have you read his user page?), little experience. Proto t c 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a big fan of Ramallite's political views, and in fact am pretty much diametrically opposed to most of them...but I've never seen any indication from his interaction with other editors, nor from his editing style, that would lead me to believe that those views in any way negatively reflect on either, nor any indication that they would negatively impact his adminship. Do you have any evidence that they have, or would that you should be presenting to the group? Having a POV is very different from not being able to extricate your POV from your editing style... As for "lack of experience", from what I've seen, Ramallite's lower-than-the-average-RfA-candidate's edit count is immaterial. He's caught on quickly, more quickly than most, and has been a constructive contributor everywhere he's been...so saying he's inexperienced seems me a bit disingenuous, and perhaps a symptom of editcountitis... Tomer TALK 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I would like to see a higher edit count on the Wikipedia namespace. I find it interesting that requiring an editor to have made a significant contribution to Wikipedia before being trusted with the mop is now being cursed as editcountitis, like it's some kind of appalling mental deficiency. That's not just Tom's comment, that's for many comments that I've noticed. Proto t c 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This RfA and its attendant discussion is rapidly becoming ridiculous. You didn't say that your "little experience" remarks had anything to do with making a "significant contribution to Wikipedia", nor did I "curse" your comments, neither did I imply any mental deficiency on your part nor on anyone else' for their comments. If this discussion in general continues down the course it's on presently, however, I may eventually have to make such conclusions... If you examine Ramallite's contributions, you'll find he has made a significant contribution to the project far beyond the measure of the vast majority of other editors with the same edit count. That's the only point I was trying to make, and I'm sticking to it. Don't go looking for insults where none are being given and then feigning deep wounds. This isn't a support group. Click on the "e" in my signature for that... Tomer TALK 19:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Joaquin Murietta 15:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Not enough edits on Wikipedia namespace. Carioca 20:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per others. PMLF 21:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The distribution of edits suggests the above is a sock puppet account. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove my vote if it makes you happy... I am not anyone`s sockpuppet. top making false accusations please. PMLF 21:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Active for more than a year. Certainly not a sockpuppet for this account. Vote should stand. Marskell 23:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent clear evidence of being a sockpuppet, please assume good faith, Slim, and quit attacking people for voting differently than you desire. WP:FAITH applies throughout wikipedia. Rangerdude 04:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that slim makes this allegation on an account open more than a year show again that she uses "wikipedia policy" and her standing here as an excuse to push her views which are totaly against facts and the assumption of good faith. This whole RfA is tainted with her pushing certain views that ramallite represents. Zeq 04:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I am not comfortable in voting to give admin rights to a person who has edited less than 300 distinct pages - I prefer around 500. --Gurubrahma 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    that attitude would seem to risk resulting in a 'stub-sorters only' admin population. In my book, support votes from people with whom the candidate has been in dispute are easily worth 2,000 housekeeping-edits each. dab (ᛏ) 19:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Please participate more in the Wikispace so you can be familiar with all of its processes and procedures. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Changed to Neutral. I prefer to remain neutral here. --Kefalonia 09:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Ramallite-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 16:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of edit summaries is 77%, 90% over last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 8 per day, 11 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 16:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a reassurance to those who are measuring #edits/time...Ramallite is one of those remarkable few who came up to speed very quickly w/policy, and he's been here five months now. Note that the above editors who endorse him represent a cross-spectrum of POVs. He is very involved on talk pages, is a mediating voice, and has vastly improved articles wherever he has edited. Please be sure to take a close look at his edit history, these are quality edits and he has the respect of editors who come from various opposing perspectives. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is question no. 4 below ("conflict of interest") intended to imply that a Palestinian editor should not participate in improving WP coverage of Palestine? Does the person posing the question consider that a Palestinian, by reason of being Palestinian, is incapable of writing in a neutral and balanced way about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? How many American candidate administrators have been asked whether they could abstain from editing or deciding issues relating to Americans, the United States, or the Iraq war? I am much more interested in seeing answers to these questions than in any answers Ramallite may decide to give to question 4 below. Palmiro | Talk 16:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment on Ramallite's userpage concerns me as to whether he will be a neutral, consensus-minded admin: "I have very little patience for people who defend Israel's occupation." Regardless of where you stand on the Israel-Palestine debate, having patience for all viewpoints is a must for an admin and may indicate his ability to abide by WP:NPOV. Declaring from the outset that you have no patience for one side of the debate may indicate that you're prone to POV pushing on that issue. Rangerdude 16:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right - I shouldn't have been so blunt but it's too late now. I describe myself as a person on that page, not my edit policies. I can safely say that the vast majority of my edits have been (and will continue to be) not completely in line with my own personal opinion, but I abide by policy and have apparently garnered widespread respect for doing so. I hope voters will look at my edit record and not just a personal description on my user page. As for having patience, I refer you to Question 3 below (and the links in my response). While I conduct myself differently in my own life, I think I am extremely patient (and even understanding) of points of view that are severely antithetical to mine on WP. Ramallite (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big difference between bringing as an editor a palestinian POV into the discussion and between being an admin involved in such articles in which Ramallite has a strong POV. I would urge those who support this idea to ask themself would they support someone who have the exact opposite views. Zeq 20:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every admin has a point of view, there's no policy against that nor could there or should there be. And many of the supporters above do in fact have opposite views to Ramallite. In fact it makes more sense to support someone with opposite views who understands policy and the importance of fairly representing all views than someone with the same views who doesn't abide by policy or see the value in fairly presenting all perspectives on a topic. Ramallite is one of the most patient, evenhanded editors I've observed. That's why he has so many supporters from "the other side". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I second everything MPerel says. The votes show Ramallite has support across the political spectrum from people who've worked with him on several articles, and who know the quality of his editing and how cooperative he is. Zeq, you've been in many ways a difficult editor, and Ramallite was extraordinarily patient with you, more than I would have been. I feel you're being unfair to him now and I ask you to reconsider. The main question for adminship is how well the editor interacts with others, whether his edits show he understands policy and respects Wikipedia, whether he's mature enough to deal with conflict, and whether he can be even-handed. Ramallite clearly has these qualities. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, you have supported ramallite and his views all the time. Like others have said: he is a POV warrior . The fact that you call me "a difficult editor" - I don't see this as "personal attck" although some would. I take as a compliment to say I insist on keeping articles neutral when others want them to be one sided. Before I joined, an article Ramallite was a key contributor was totally biased. Neither you or others have bothered to make it NPOV. By appointing more and more people like ramallite Wikipedia is slowly becoming yet one more place for bias on the web. What else is new ? The fact that you call it "Wikipedia policies". I disagree. If you and other admin will not be able to deal in a non biased way with issues such as Middle East slowly this encyclopedia will drift become meaningless appointing such a "POV warrier" is a step toward the wrong direction.Zeq 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like others have said based on what existing evidence or experience, concretely? El_C 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the comments about my lack of presence on certain WP namespace pages, and while those who voted to oppose my nomination because of this are within their right to do so, it does not change the fact that, as I said in Question 1, I will be more active in those pages regardless of the outcome of this nomination. I do want to point out that I am very disappointed in those who cited POV issues without elaborating. For example, for many of you, I have never had any interactions with you whatsoever, and a couple of comments indicate that you have not even read enough of my contributions to make such a claim. In certain instances, I had a conflict with a couple of editors where, in one case, the dispute is ongoing here (so you can decide for yourselves) and another case where I objected to an editor's seemingly blind assertion that sexual repression in Palestinian society is pretty high and therefore rape and incest is pretty common, here. I urge those who are concerned about POV issues to do a little research first and make sure it is a fair reason on their part. Finally, the correct word in "inexperienced", there is no "unexperienced". Thanks Ramallite (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that Guy, the most right-wing (in Israeli terms, not otherwise politics of which I know little) pro-Israeli contributor I am aware of supports the candidate, speaks volumes. The fact that so many of us who are actually involved in those articles (again, from both sides) support him, is greatly to his credit. And arguably to the discredit of those who contributed editing this set of articles and interacted with the candidate seldom, if it all — well, consider that the end of the sentence. Said with full respect to and appreciation for the arguments forwarded by those opposing due to a lack of edits in certain areas (a valid criticism). El_C 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I have recently begun to patrol on "Recent Changes" and "New Pages" in my spare time and will continue to perform RC-patrol regularly. I am also quick to revert vandalism but usually give the editor the benefit of the doubt in the edit summary. I also plan to mediate disputes more actively; I have done so in the past but have avoided "toxic" discussion pages until they have cooled down, but this is something I will become more active in. Other than that, I would also look into backlogged items that required attention and help out with those, as well as wikify items in articles and other such housekeeping chores. But my main aim is to be a voice of reason and a good and trusted arbitrator and enforcer of policies.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Ramallah! I rewrote this entry from a stub that had to do with a very limited event in the city to a broader article about the city's history, politics, and culture. I am happy that I edited articles such as Gaza Strip, West Bank, Apple Computer, IMac, and others to fill in a lot of gaps and make them more complete. I am also glad with the work I did on Nablus, which was under edit-warring for a while (not involving me) but I was able to reach a good compromise. Lastly, I was very pleased to have collaborated with User:Itamar on providing Arabic audio pronounciations to a number of articles where Arabic and/or Hebrew names are mentioned.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I did on my first couple of days here because I was very unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Since then, I have generally been successful at using compromise and reason to reach mutual agreement, and have not had real conflicts to speak of. The one exception may be Israeli West Bank barrier which I got into a heated discussion with a new editor who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies but persisted with editing. Even then, most of the conflict was (and still is) on the discussion page and I didn't keep reverting (never reached my 3RR limit). In other cases, I have had more success in dealing directly with editors of opposing views and hopefully earned their respect, such as here.
4. "Conflict of interst" : If you will become an admin can you avoid taking part in editing or deciding on issues in which you have vested interst such as every entry about Palestine, Palestinians and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ?
A. Absolutely not. I have been nominated to become an administrator precisely because of my editing in such pages, not in spite of them. My POV on the situation is well known, as I have posted them on my user page. But I think I have done a very decent job at separating my own beliefs (and experiences) from my editing on Wikipedia. My editing is not confined to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I am constantly exploring new territory, but I think it is unfair (not to mention inappropriate) that I be asked to refrain from editing articles that I have a lot of knowledge about by an inexperienced editor who merely disagrees with my use of official Palestinian, Israeli, and international bodies as sources, and refers to them as 'propaganda'. (Note: The editor who poses this question is the new editor with whom I have had a conflict with on Israeli West Bank barrier (mentioned above). For more perspective on this please see here).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite&oldid=27185058"