Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Ramallite

Final (81/24/6)* ended 12:33 November 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

• Note to bureaucrat: There are four disputed oppose votes: #20 Windturbine (talk · contribs); #22 Mishauli (talk · contribs); #23 Mickwe (talk · contribs), believed to be sock puppets created to vote in this nomination; and #24 User:Lord Voldemort, who voted after the close of the nomination. If these votes are not counted, the final tally is 81/20/6. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are disputed votes on both sides, and users who edited the page but the vote was not counted. Slim, what you did above is POV you should have included in your note the complete picture. This is one more of your attempts to infulance this nomonation. Some of this infulance is behind the scene and what we see from you is just the tip of the iceberg. Zeq 07:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No: there is no disputed support vote. If Zeq had any plausible claim in that regard, he should list the specific vote and reason. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See talk. Zeq 13:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

One or more of the strikes of votes were done a dozen or so hours after the closing. --Silverback 01:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, which vote #'s you are referring to? I see one strike performed after the deadline, but the vote also appears to have been originally cast after the deadline. Maybe I'm missing something. --MattWright (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They are included, but be aware of the possible sockpuppetry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The late oppose was bona fide, caused by confusion in time zones. Counting grues + LV's vote. That makes the final tally 81/22/6, just shy of 80% or 81/28 on a pure approval basis. All in all a well conducted RfA, and if he is elavated I wish Rammalite the best. Klonimus 06:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No: every count includes Grue. W/ LV's late vote, it would be 81/21/6 (if sockpuppets are excluded). 24-3==21, right? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutly no proof of any sockpupets that have been used. If thereis present it. I have asked before: can you check the IP address of any such vote which you claim came from a sockpupet ? If no proof please don't bite the newcomers. If a user that has only 4 month record can be nominated surly new users can vote Zeq 09:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

These alligations of voting irregularities are very serious. They merit serious consideration. Klonimus 09:31, 8 November 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)

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

Support

1. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
4. Support. Wikipedian of the year. Marsden 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
6. Support. One of the good guys. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, strongly Huldra 16:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Apoyo con mucho gusto Tomer ^TALK 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Of course. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
12. FireFox (RFA) 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. Good editor, calm and reasoned, helps provide balance by bringing Palestinian position to articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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 20px| articles. -- Svest 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
15. Absolutely. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, with pleasure. Palmiro | Talk 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Stays remarkably civil considering the contentious nature of many of the articles he edits. —Morven 01:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
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)

    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)

    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)

19. Support. john k 05:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
21. I now make it two-thirds in favor. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Unbehagen 15:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Strong 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)
24. Support Good, sensible editor (notwithstanding his personal page). Guy Montag 21:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support This should have nothing to do with his politics/world view --Rogerd 23:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support FeloniousMonk 00:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support --Yodakii 01:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
29. Support Good editor with ability to discuss heated topics. --MattWright (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support Displays mindboggling ability to remain calm in the face of adversity. --Zero 08:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support --Goodoldpolonius2 14:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Fadix 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
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)

    This type of support (as well voter # 18) shows why this Rfa should not be aproved. To vote 'support' because others vote 'oppose' - this is a sure way to build consensus......To vote 'yes' because the 'camp' that voted 'no' - what kind of argument it is. Are we playing games here ? Is what you are saying is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and thus I votte for him. that is dirty politics. Zeq 21:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

    That's how democracy works, people are free to vote for any reasons they think are good. Fadix 22:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

    I agree that everyone can vote as he wants to but it is also important to understand the reasons beyond the numbers. (btw, it is always funny to me to hear people in the west talk about democracy. what of all the westren civilization (of which wikipedia is part) would remain if all the people of this world can have their say about it.....Zeq 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

34. Support - Flooey 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Polite and calm, stays cool when editing heated articles. Cybbe 20:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. Excellent editor on controversial topics; Wiki namespace participation is irrelevant. Ambi 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. seems able to maintain NPOV in difficult areas. Dlyons493 Talk 01:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Many difficult topics suffer from a lack of disinterested people who can edit and administrate in a way that works towards consensus. I hope that Ramallite can help the project. -Willmcw 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. --Viriditas | Talk 11:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. An intelligent, articulate and composed editor who will make a fine admin. --Ian Pitchford 13:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. Changed vote, see below. The Minister of War^(Peace) 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support, none of the oppose votes make me think he'll abuse the tools. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support Yuber^(talk) 00:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Slightly qualified Support. My only question is about amount of experience. I am certain he'd be a good admin, and I'd take the chance on a little on-the-job training. Any POV issues should be completely laid to rest by the support from Jayjg and especially Guy Montag, who are (respectively) largely and diametrically opposed to his views on Israel/Palestine and who have worked extensively with him on articles in this subject matter area. If we cannot get consensus now, please let's come back to this in a month or two. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 03:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support Excellent choice. 172 | Talk 04:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. The cadre of WP editors needs to be diversified as much as possible.--Zereshk 04:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support, though I must comment on the user page where it states: "I view a person's choice of using a Mac versus a Windows machine as an indication of that person's intellect." The thinking man chooses Linux, and the guru one of the BSDs. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

    That'd be MacOS X then? (runs away) - David Gerard (posting from a G4/800) 07:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

49. Anyone who can successfully get both sides of the Israel/Palestine free-floating flamewar to approve of them is way too dangerous, will probably follow up by squaring the circle and must be supported. Er, hold on, I'll just come in again - David Gerard 07:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support, I'm as impressed as dab and David Gerard by the approval coming in from the freefloating flamewar. I encourage everybody to read the Oppose votes below, I think some of them can only work in the candidate's favor. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support, There is nothing in your contribution log or your user page that troubles me, Ramallite. I do think Sarah jumped the gun a bit by nominating you so early. After another month of good editing you'd have sailed through with much less opposition. It's not that an editor needs an enormous amount of experience to learn not to abuse the admin tools - it's just that it takes much more effort to evaluate someone with fewer edits. In your case I find that your calm response to the opposition you've got has tested your mettle enough to say that you will use the admin tools with the most important admin quality of all - restraint. Your comment below that there aren't any special admin powers seals the deal for me. Good luck. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Calmness and courtesy are better indications of a person's fitness to have the extra tools than number of edits or length of time here (within reason, of course). Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 14:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support The more good editors the better this becomes. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. Keeping cool here suggests to me that User:Ramallite will make a reliable admin. Jkelly 16:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
55. Support. The opposition is utterly unconvincing. Ramallite does good work and keeps a cool head. Why's everyone trying to make adminship into a Big Deal? Dmcdevit·t 18:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
56. I support for four reasons. 1) Ramallite appears a good editor. 2) I trust the judgment of many of those others who have supported. 3) Ramallite's contributions here have been impressive. 4) I disagree with voting on account of political opinions, on-wiki or off-. [[Sam Korn]] 18:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
57. Support Deserving. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
58. Support His contributions are constructive. He is knowledgeable about the subjects he contributes with and plays well with others.--Vizcarra 21:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. See comments for reason. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 23:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
60. Strong Support. This is a very kind and polite wikipedian, who had cooperated with me on recording several Hebrew and Arabic audio prunounciations for Israel/Palestine related topics. Itamar 23:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
61. Support. Although Ramallite has a relatively limited editing history, his contributions have been extremely professional and polite, even when addressing politically contentious topics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
62. Support. Changed vote from oppose. Ramallite is bright, knowledgeable, polite, and calm. And he might find a cure for cancer, which would be nice. --saxet 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
63. I wasn't familiar with this user previously, but in this case I find the stark contrast between the case for supporting and the case for opposing persuasive. Opposing based on mechanical criteria (time, distribution of edits, etc.) is perhaps understandable, even if I don't care to substitute such measurements for my personal judgment. But for many of those opposing based on "POV issues", Wikipedia would probably benefit greatly if these folks continued shouting into mirrors while leaving the disputed pages to the diverse viewpoints of the crew above. --Michael Snow 03:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
64. Cool. JuntungWu 04:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
65. Support. --Juan Muslim 09:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. Seems extremely civil and relaxed, with a good understanding the Wikipedia "philosophy", so to speak. And I agree with the above vote: "And he might find a cure for cancer, which would be nice" :-> Coffee 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
67. Support -- Duk 15:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
68. Support, if only for his ability to bring civility and enforce NPOV on Palestine-related articles. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
69. Support. Most of the oppose votes are there only because the editors don't agree with this user's personal viewpoints. - ulayiti (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
70. Support. Looking at Ramallite's history, I think he will use the tools wisely. While I might like to see a little more Wikispace participation, his work on "New Pages" and "Recent Changes" doesn't make him any less worthy than editors who have a large number of edits on AfD. There are lots of different needs here and no one needs to try to cover everything. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
71. I'm mystified as to why User:Zeq would spam my talkpage with a suggestion that I look at this RfA, but I'm kinda glad he did. Looks like an excellent user, whose edits, despite his strong personal POV, have attracted praise from all sides of the political spectrum. I have no qualms about adding my support to this RfA. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
72. Support. Good user, that I've seen. James F. (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
73. Support as above. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
74. Support. Willing to extend trust to someone who can edit hot-button topics and still remain civil and productive to work with, as it appears this user can. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
75. Support; on perusal of userpage, edits, and so forth, I'm quite impressed. In fact, extremely impressed. Antandrus (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
76. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
77. Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Good chap, deep thinker and a good negotiator. Knocked the socks off Fadix by replying in Armenian. Stays cool when discussing issue that must be close to home [1]. Excellent.
78. Support; by all accounts, fair, meticulous, and unflappable. BrandonYusufToropov 02:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
79. Reactive support. If I'd come upon this RfA as one of the first few contributors, I'd have certainly voted oppose or neutral at best. Small experiance outside namespace and a provocative user page would have made me cautious, and as becoming and admin is effectivly one-way, I'd have trotted out the old "in a while" chestnut. However, this editor appears to have reacted with considerable grace under pressure. Policy can be learned fairly easily, a cool head is harder to aquire. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
80. Support, At first honestly I almost instinctivley opposed the nomination due to Rammallite's user page, but the fact that he has shown nothing but strength of character and reason in his posts shows me that he is level-headed, intelligent, and rational enough to become an administrator, furthermore the honesty he has exhibited on his user page proves to me he has no ulterior motives as it would have been much easier to not reveal his politics at all. Ramallite is a true model for correct wikiquette. I will however say that although I strongly disagree with some people's methods and ideas on this page as a new user myself I do think they have every bit of a right to vote as long as they are not sock puppets or anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
81. Support, while the comments on his user page honestly make me sick, this user has been known to make only good NPOV edits recently. -- Ynhockey || Talk 06:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
2. Please get some familiarity with Wikispace and its processes before considering adminship. Radiant_>|< 16:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
4. Oppose. Needs more time and interaction. (Seems like a good guy, though :) --NormanEinstein 17:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose per NormanEinstein. freestylefrappe 20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose per others. Private Butcher 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
   • Oppose per above --JAranda | watz sup 04:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

     Changed vote to neutral --JAranda | watz sup 20:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

9. 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)
10. 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)
11. Strong Oppose, PoV warrior (have you read his user page?), little experience. Proto t c 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
12. Oppose Joaquin Murietta 15:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Not enough edits on Wikipedia namespace. Carioca 20:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose per others. PMLF 21:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

    The distribution of edits suggests the above is a sock puppet account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

    Why do you think so, SlimVirgin? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

    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)

    Active for more than a year. Certainly not a sockpuppet for this account. Vote should stand. Marskell 23:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

    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)

    Seems to my that assuming Slim is "attacking people for voting differently than you desire" isn't assuming good faith yourself. Just sayin'. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

    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)

    I think you should tone down your attitude User:Zeq, especially considering that you are a very recently created account (that reminds me a lot of User:John McW). Your indignant opposition to User:Ramallite comes across as a bit too much in my opinion. --saxet 13:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    I don't even know who John McW is. Too much or not too much. It is important for issues to be ironed out and that is what I am doing. Zeq 18:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    What you (maybe) fail to realize is that your exaggerated opposition to Ramallite will probably work in his favour. --saxet 14:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

    If true, this again prove my point that he is being pushed into adminship for wrong reasons, political ones.Zeq 06:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

15. 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)

    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)

    In some of his edit dispute, the more minor ones, the candidate is handling well. But when it comes to issues close to him (such as the effects of the barrier on Palestinian life) he did poorly, this is mentioned in other comments and in the talk page of that article. So getting support from some people with whom he has been in dispute is nice but that does not mean that he is able to deal with such disputes all the time, on all subjects.Zeq 07:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

16. Absolutely NO! User page comments such as "The Israeli checkpoints and restrictions on movement are an unfortunate necessity to protect Israelis against suicide bombers" along with an "answer" which basically calls the Israeli position a lie, is scurrilous aregumentation at it's worst and de facto proof of anti-Israli bias with intention to stoke discord. Never. Not today. Not tommorrow. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    Rex, several editors who strongly support Israel have supported Ramallite. In fact, he has an unprecedented mix of support from across the political spectrum, and these are editors who know his work. Also, whatever is on his talk page doesn't necessarily reflect how he edits. He understands our policies and edits in accordance with them, including NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    Rex, it is not appropriate to oppose someone's adminship because you disagree with their political opinions. Please vote only based on whether you think they would make good admins. — Matt Crypto 09:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    Is it appropriate to support someone's adminship because you agree with their political opinions ? or because you "trust" the other editors who voted for him ? Zeq 14:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    A candidate should be judged on whether they can be trusted not to abuse admin powers. Political opinions about Israel are irrelevant. — Matt Crypto 14:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    Oppose. Another agent of influence. Also, not enough edits on wikipedia namespace. --saxet 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Changed vote to support. --saxet 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Weak oppose. While he seems level headed, some edits (such as this one) have left me doubting. You clearly have strong opinions on the topic (most of which I share), but i feel an admin should always be able to see both sides. You state yourself on your user page that you cannot do so in this instance. The Minister of War^(Peace) 07:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The edit you refer to was among my very first on Wikipedia before I knew what policies were and before I took a genuine interest in WP as an encyclopedia. It certainly does not reflect my editing style since then. I would definitely not be here right now if that was still my editing style. Ramallite ^(talk) 11:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Aha, i accidentally checked your earlier edits, thought i was browsing the recent ones. Upon reading more recent edits (especially the ones claimed by Zeq to be extremely POV), i find you to be pretty much NPOV. Changing my vote to support. Although, to be entirely honest, i think you might want to consider... softening... your user page a bit. The appearance of being a POV warrior can be just as detrimental as actually being one. The Minister of War^(Peace) 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose -- Karl Meier 18:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose Rama's user page says that he/she has "very little patience." Rama is an unreasonable POV warrior in my opinion. This is evidenced by edits in 2005 Paris riots where Rama claimed that only French sources can be relied upon beause "all US and UK media are owned by one person." Rama's expresed intent in that article was to remove any and all mentions of French Muslims. To me, Rama suggests the character of a typical pro-Islamist paranoid conspiracy theorist who is intolerant of views that conflict with his own. Despite this, Rama is probably a good editor in general and has good intentions, but is not suitable for sysop status (IMO). -- Zeno of Elea 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

      I think there is a mistake and this vote should not be counted. based on the reasons given the voter has confused the editor Rama with Ramallite. I think it is against wikipedia policy to let people get login name which is similar to others. Zeq 20:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

      You are aware that User:Rama and User:Ramallite are different people, and the former is already a sysop? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

      Zeno, I think you're getting Ramallite mixed up with Rama. Ramallite has not edited 2005 Paris riots so far as I can see. And Rama is already an admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

      Zeno of Elea, you must have me confused with somebody else (at least when referring to editing). I am "Ramallite", not "Rama" who is a completely different person. I have never edited the 2005 Paris riots page. Please make sure you read my own edits. Thanks for taking the time to vote anyhow. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

      Yes, I was confused. I withdraw my vote. I think Rama's adminship should be taken away and given to Ramallite. Failing that, I am neutral in this matter since I don't know Ramallite at all. -- Zeno of Elea 20:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

18. Oppose Anti-Israel bullying should not be rewarded. And, to comment on something I see happening on this page: Just because I may often agree with a particular person on the contents of articles, does not mean I necessarily have to agree with them on who should be an admin. Aren't we each entitled to our own opinion on each issue? 6SJ7 21:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
19. OpposeI don't trust the judgement of those who are pushing him for this position so soon. We know about as much about him as we did about Harriet Miers. How will he deal with admin abuse for instance? Has he been around long enough to have experienced it?--Silverback 16:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, because it doesn't seem to be based on my actual record. On one hand, you are questioning the motives of my supporters, not the quality of my edits (or lack of, if you wish), and on another, your question suggests that you haven't actually read my contributions but are wondering about them. Don't you think you should at least ask (in the Questions for the Candidate section below) in order to have an informed decision, and if not, then stay neutral? The comparison to Miers is pretty strange too. I'm one of the few editors who actually states some sort of profile (researcher, etc) and POV on my talk page, almost everybody else is completely anonymous. Should the senate Democrats oppose Aleto because they merely don't trust the judgement of President Bush? Or because of his own record? In any case, thanks for taking the time to vote. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    You've only been around for 4 months, and it is too hard to get rid of admins who abuse. El_C gives you glowing praise and he has supported people and philosophies that think abuse is OK in order to get them what what they want.--Silverback 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    Responded to Silverback's allegations, which I don't feel were made in goodfaith and do consider an attack: here here. El_C 12:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

    I have responded there, I consider questioning my good faith a personal attack. We've already been in dispute resolution, and you have made clear where you stand.--Silverback 12:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

    Your comment was a personal attack and it lacked goodfaith, period. El_C 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

    "Good faith" has meaning, I made a good faith response to a question. Quit characterizing my comments, and respond to the substance, if you have any issues with it.--Silverback 13:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

    Again, hard to understand how my being around for 4 months is relevant or how being here longer would make any difference in the context of your specific arguments, since you already made up your mind without using my own edits and interactions as evidence (or so it appears to me). It shouldn't matter what people who support my nomination do as much as it should matter what I myself do. You have chosen unusual reasons not to assume good faith. But oh well, thanks anyway. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    Ramallite, a number of voters on both sides have used "just look at who voted on the other side!" as grounds for their vote. It seems to be a feature of several recent RfAs. I'd say overall that sort of thinking has been a push in your RfA--ie, those votes have balanced each other out, it's neither hurt you nor benefited you. Babajobu 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    "Ramallite has been editing since June 2", hmm, I get that to be 5 months. Regards, Huldra 20:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    5 months would be the end of November, not the beginning. June, july, august, september, october, whoops, you're right, I miscounted. Apologies, Still a short time.--Silverback 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

20. Oppose. POV. Ramallite would have to be a saint to be objective on Palestine/Israel issues, but he isn't a saint and most likely will not become one. Windturbine 20:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    User's first edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

21. Oppose not convinced he won't be pushing POV after being promoted. Since we don't have an easy procedure for de-adminning, it's better to be on the cautious side.  Grue  05:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose. POV: His mild critique of the Arab side never approaches the level his rejection of Israel's position. Mishauli 12:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

    User's third edit. Ramallite ^(talk) 12:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

    Question, is this standard practice on Wikipedia? For the candidate to comment on the voters? This whole method of electioneering seems remarkable to me. Usually when there is an up-or-down vote on someone the someone generally makes whatever "speech" is appropriate at the beginning (in this case, answering the questions is the "speech") and then remains relatively silent as the discussion takes place. But if this is the way it is on Wikipedia, I guess that's the way it is. Are there a lot of other examples of "votes" that went like this, with all the campaigning by supporters and the candidate? 6SJ7 17:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

23. Oppose. POV: He doesn't seem neutral on this issue. Note: this is my first *registered* edit, but I am by no means new.

    This by Mickwe (talk • contribs). Registered today. [[Sam Korn]] 12:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

24. Oppose. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

    D'oh. Obviously I cannot understand time zones. I did vote past the closing time, but I will leave it up to the BCrat to decide if they want to count my vote or not. Sorry for any added trouble. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

25. Oppose. The statement Ramallite added "Although the Israeli government has said that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent attacks and that any hardship to Palestinians is an unfortunate side effect made necessary by terrorism, the barrier's opponents say the barrier is the de facto future border of the State of Israel."[2] shows he cannot check his bias at the door. The word "although" implies contradiction, in this case that the purpose of the barrier is indeed a de facto future barrier (first statement is false because last statement is true). It's a little Freudian slip, and indeed is hard to notice and many editors might pass it off as neutral, while others will notice the POV but not be able to point it out. This mistake obviously could have been accidental on his part, (he makes no secret of his biases). However, considering the numerous complaints here it sounds like his own bias, accidental or not, is a large problem that he has difficulty coping with, so I oppose his nomination on those grounds. --Ben 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben, please note that I had removed the "although" word you are referring to, because I agree it was POV (and was there before I or Zeq ever came to Wikipedia). Zeq reverted my version back to the older version which contained a lot of POV (such as "although"), some by him, most by others. Had he read my version he would probably not had reverted as fast. Please note this before making this vote. Also note that voting closed about 12 hours ago. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. I withdraw my opposition. That Zeq would revert to that more POV version when his biases clearly go the other way is what must have confused me. --Ben 01:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
3. Neutral On the negative side so little wikispace experience and very small number of edits overall for an admin. Also, it's a little worrying that an editor who focuses on Arab-Israeli conflict had "I have very little patience for people who defend the Israeli position" on his userpage until part way through this RfA. On the other hand, it is very impressive that he's generated support from both sides of the aisle in a very polarized debate, so I won't vote oppose. Neutral for now, would probably support in future if wikispace and edit count issues are rectified. Babajobu 17:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral: For me, it's all about time and edits. There have been enough of both to show equanimity and neutrality of point of view, sobriety and care in editing, and I'm not usually an editcountitis sufferer. I think, with SlimVirgin and others above, that we need more folks with the kind of understanding of the differences between self and project that Ramallite has, and, with Bishonen and others, I am very, very uneasy with some of the names and reasoning offered in the "oppose" column, as some of those folks are just this side of banned users; however, I would ask for more time and more edits. Geogre 19:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral Changed vote from Oppose. Lack of Wikipedia Edits --JAranda | watz sup 20:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Not sure I can properly verbalize why at this point - it's certainly nothing like the shitstorm that erupted with User:Tony1's RfA, it's just... I dunno. Some of the unanswered questions, some of the issues of insufficient participation... DS 00:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

For more comments and questions, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ramallite.

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

The problem with ramallite is that most of his edits have been on the middle east and in many of them he pushed a POV. Sometimes this POV is sourced to official Palestinian Propeganda. So the problem is that he will use his admin privilges to push his POV. Ramallite as an editor is different from Rammalite as an admin Igf Ramallite want to help wikipedia as an admin that is very welcome but if Ramallite will continue to focus on this one subject and use his privilges this is a concern. I hope this clarify the question. I would never raise this question about him as editor. It is only this RfA (taken with his narrow scope edit record) that raised this question. Zeq 22:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I would add that I view the fact that he is a Palestinian editor as a strong point in his favour. The fact that he can bring this viewpoint to Wikipedia, and yet express it in a fact-filled, well-cited, and non-confrontational way, is exactly what is needed to ensure that the WP:NPOV policy is adhered to. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"well cited" ? I disagree. He uses many refernces to a PLO propeganda site called plo-nad. several examples to his use of this propeganda material in the west bank barrier article. Zeq 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

I can vouch for the fact that Ramallite's edits abide by policy, not his own feelings. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Like others have said based on what existing evidence or experience, concretely? El_C 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

one example out of many is [3] (in the article on west bank barrier). also read his user page. Zeq 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, you have already voted. Thank you for your vote. I didn't have to point out it was you who wrote question 4, it is already in the history of this article and anybody can find out. But I wanted to point out the background against which you asked such a question, which was your interaction with me on Israeli West Bank barrier. You were asked to provide an example of why I am a "POV pusher", and you did so by referring the voters to here. Now they can decide for themselves by reading it. You have made your point (believe me you have). Thank you again. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

• • 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)

• I suggest that every voter would review this edit before voting: [4]

• I don't know if this is really permitted, but if it is, I think that Zeq answer directly in the Questions for the candidate section, was disrespectful. Fadix 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What was realy disrespectfull was the attempt to belittle a question by "pointing out" who is the person who asked the question. Questions are always a valid tool not to be belittled. The issue of where a wikipedia editor post his remarks (as long as they are signed) should not become a concern. The issue is to get a dialogue on this issue. be bold Zeq 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• There is another great concern This is not about Ramallite as an editor or admin. Thisconcern is about Wikipedia. Shortly after a request to make a blatent anti-Israel editor into an admin have failed Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor the same person comes up with another such candidate. What is going on here ?

What is going on here is that you don't know when enough is enough - you've made your point, added your vote, asked an inappropriate question which I answered, and referred the voters to why you think I'm a "POV warrior" (which they can decide for themselves if they can read through all the edits that you made on that page) and even asked me to withdraw my nomination on my own talk page. Just take a break now, please. I also want to point out two things: First, you call me a "blatant anti-Israel editor", which is blatantly false (and not based on anything other than your disproportionate overreaction to anything I write), and you are insinuating things about User:SlimVirgin that are against the assume good faith policy. Unlike myself, most editors on WP do not outline their POV on their user pages. I did so for a reason (I felt it important to illustrate my frame of reference after realizing what NPOV was all about, since I would not be doing it elsewhere), but most editors do not state their POV and SlimVirgin has not either. I ask you to stop attacking other editors about their POV of which you have absolutely no idea. I say this in good faith, you are damaging your own reputation by your tirades here and elsewhere. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what you placed on your userpage was a mistake, and I also believe that it is not too late for you to modify the content. You must understand that one of the first thing people that don't know you check, is the user page. While I've seen a clear differences between your recent contributions and what is in your user page, many just don't take the time to read your contribution after they read your page. Now about the current situation, I think it is safe to say that you should ignore Zeq answers. By now, everyone knows he strongly oppose you, and that your answers and the way you behaved shows that you are a good admin candidate, and the arguments to support you are stronger, because here there is an opposition between your participation in Wikipedia, which is good, and what you personaly believe. What you do is more important than what you think personaly, which is your business.

Now, I want to add a last thing, and this for those that opposes him. If, an Arab, that participate in controversial subjects such as the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, and that the fact that he is able to get support from both sides is not enough, I just wonder, what would it take for an Arab who participate in such articles to become an Admin? Also, the fact that he has a strong view about the Israelo-Palestinian affair, and that he is still able to cool down and participate in articles about those subjects, and even getting support from both side, is enough evidences of exceptional conduct. The community should support such behavours and not the opposit. Fadix 20:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore me like Fadix suggests. The fact that Ramallite is an Arab does not add or substruct anything about adminship. What is disturbing is that people like Fadix bring the national origin of a person into the discussion. If someone would try to use a national origin to speak against a candidate it would not be alowed, somehow mentioning it in his favor seems to fly without objections. Very strange indeed. Zeq 21:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Question for objectors: Several objectors have cited "POV concerns" as a reason to oppose. I'm wondering just what that means. Surely it's not a problem that the candidate has a POV, since we all do. Is there a complaint that the candidate inserts his POV into articles? If so, could anyone provide examples? Or is the complaint merely that the candidate has a POV that some voters don't like? If so, that doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason to object. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• An admitted POV cannot be an opposition reason, since we all have a POV based on our history and beliefs. What is important that Ramallite isn't pushing his POV overtly in the face of everyone he meets. On the contrary, I, looking through his Talk: and User talk: contributions, find that he is always courteous and cool in the face of conflict. This is exactly what is needed in an admin. And let Editcountitis be damned. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 23:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• See questions 5 and 6 that were asked to candidate. See his edits on israeli west ban barrier and you will understand what his POV is from his edits. That is the problem. Zeq 23:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

3 additional questions have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ramallite Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite#Questions_that_have_not_been_answered_by_candidate for complete info on the candidate answers to these questions.
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).

I am opposed to this person being an adminstrator unless the follwoing criteria is met: 1) A recognition that the state of Israel has a right to exist as it is 2) A recognition that Israel is not an apartheid state, but that it has equal trights by law for all citizens, including its 21% Arab population 3)A denunciation of any terrorism by Hamas Islamic Jihad or PFLP. 4)A recogntion that Article 7 of the PA COnstitution says Islam is the official religion of Palestine and that the PA has a death sentence for anyone who sells land to a Jew, a method of ehtnically cleansing Jews from the West Bank as was done in Gaza. 5) The ISM has professional propagandists and liars and the PAPA is not a democracy but a totalitarian society per FreedomHouse.org whose Wiki administrators may be part of. Wikipedia has allowed false information to be posted by PLO dvocates on this site andwhich negates its abilioty as a truthful research tool. Ramalite will only add to to this. I recommend admin be given only to professional Middle East Scholars such as Bernard Lewis or Martin Kramer. Finally, a denunciation of the Right of Return as just a ploy to demographically overrun the Jewish population inside Israel to dismantle the Jewish state. unsigned by User:TheHussar

A couple of new users stumbled upon this nomination today as the very first page they happened to edit. [5] [6] I'm thrilled it's attracting such a diverse readership and causing people around the world to sign up for user accounts in their excitement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In light of the campaign tactics employed in support of this nomination, both by you on this page and by others on talk pages and evidently in e-mail, I hardly think you are in a position to criticize (sarcastically or otherwise) what others are doing. You should be just be satisfied that your tactics apparently are succeeding. I will admit that this is the first Wikipedia "election" I have participated in, and if they are all like this, it may be the last. This election is a combination of the old Soviet Union and old-style Chicago. 6SJ7 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - "Please do not bite the newcomers" - WP:BITE. Thanks. Rangerdude 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"I recommend admin be given only to professional Middle East Scholars such as Bernard Lewis or Martin Kramer." Best. Adminship. Criteria. Ever. I think that that one line perfectly summarizes this entire RfA. --Aquillion 00:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.