Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rami R

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

Closing statement by withdrawing candidate

Thank you all for participating in my RFA. Although I am disappointed with the end result, I understand it and accept it. I will do my best to learn from this experience, and to address the opposers' concerns. Specifically about the talk page removals: I always knew that I was stricter in my interpretation of the talk page guidelines than the community norm; I just didn't appreciate how much stricter. I promise to be more careful and considerate in the future.

Thanks for all those who supported me, whose words encouraged me throughout the RFA, and continue to encourage me onwards. Rami R 20:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rami R

Final: (61/24/5); Withdrawn by candidate at 20:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

Nomination

Rami R (talk · contribs) – I've been an editor here for over 3 years primarily focusing on Israeli politics. In that time I've learned much from wikipedia, and not just from the articles themselves: how one writes articles, how to source statements, and how to collaborate with others in the process. I've gained much from editing wikipedia, and wish to try and give back as much as I can. Rami R 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to be a 'general use' admin, helping where I can, and with backlogs as needed. Specifically I've noticed I am often active during the "quieter" times of the day, when AIV reports may not be taken care of as promptly as they typically are. I also intend to be (semi-)active in UAA, RFPP, and speedy deletions, but mostly only for blatant/simple cases (e.g. at RFPP I don't see myself imposing full-protection). Perhaps as I gain experience I'll deal with more complicated issues.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I consider myself a wiki-gnome. As such, I'm afraid I don't have any FA/GA/DYK I can proudly point to (truly I envy those with the patience to work on an article from creation to FA). I do have some copyediting work, adding sources here and there, and vandalism removal. I also do various meta-editing, such as talk and talk-archive page maintenance. Specifically I'm proud of maintaining Talk:Jerusalem/capital - an archive of discussions having do to with Jerusalem and its status as capital. In terms of article creations, I have one stub (Eliezer Rivlin - Israeli supreme court justice) and two main article splits. I've also created a number of redirects.

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: Despite working on the heated topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for the most part I usually avoid conflicts. Not to say that I haven't had any. I've learned from these that most editors can be reasoned with when engaged in a calm and respectful manner. However, not all conflicts end with everyone happy, and in such cases it's important to just drop the issues and move on.

The first significant conflict I had was about Jonathan Pollard's article in June 2008. Back then a user was pushing a POV on the article, using unreliable sources. I reverted that user and used the npov warning templates, which only made the issue worse. When the user came to my talk page, I was confrontational, and unnecessarily warned him of potentially impending blocks for continued incivility. This further escalated the conflict, resulting in an ANI thread. The issue was 'resolved' (more like, died-out) when the user stopped editing the article. Since then, I've avoided using warning templates for complex issues such as POV and RS and have tried to be less confrontational.

Another conflict was about Kadima in October 2009. The question was whether Kadima is a centrist party, or a center-left party, and where in the article to state this. After much heated debate, the issue was settled by quietly dropping the issue, as talk page discussion had outlived its usefulness, and further disputed resolution steps for what by then had become a trivial wording issue didn't seem worth it.

Additional optional questions about CSDs from Phantomsteve

4. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:

a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?

A. A1 is an article lacking context, meaning an average reader would not be able to recognize/understand what the topic is about. e.g. "John Doe has a nice car." However, "John Doe, born 1966, has a nice car. He currently serves as postman for Springfield, Wisconsin." Has context, and thus not a A1 candidate (doesn't meet other inclusion criteria though).

A3 is about the article content. While external link can be used to establish context (e.g. in an article about "Fake Industries Co." a link to the 'about' section in their website), wikipedia is not the yellow pages, and articles should have at least a proper summery of the topic.

b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?

A. At first I would check if the article is even within the scope of A7: real person, individual animal(s), an organization, or web content. Once it is established that it is, I would check for a semi-credible assertion of notablity. E.g. something on lines of "Has won ... awards", "well-known/famous for ...", "achieved ...", etc. Semi-credible in this case means that it isn't glaringly obvious that claim is fake; so "Jane Doe is the fastest person in the world" would not do (although technically that would be G3 material).

After declining, I would of course take the necessary step to insure it meets our inclusion criteria (if needed), or have it deleted in the proper process (other CSD if applicable, prod/afd, etc.)

Additional optional question from Phantomsteve

5. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?

A. Given that I am involved, I can of course not use any of my admin tools. I would try to discuss said edits see if our differences can be resolved. Failing that, other dispute resolution step exist, including 3O (assuming we are the only two arguing), RFC, medcab and so forth. However, not all differences can be settled happily, and not all users can be reasoned with. If there is a clear edit war going on, I may make a WP:ANEW report or request protection.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

6. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. I would definitely not close such AFDs, as (a) I don't plan to be active at AFD closures, and (b) it's one thing making a tough call, it's something else placing your head on the executioner's block.

Hypothetically, if I were required to make such a close, I'd try to avoid making a "no consensus" call. Though the easiest call to make, for a contentious issue such as marginally-notable BLPs an admin should take the extra effort to make a "consensus" call (be it keep or delete), even if borderline. Not to say that a borderline consensus can always be found, just that if it can be, it should be.

As for the example, even hypothetically I wouldn't close it. As the article was about a wikipedia editor, determining the AFD consensus (or lack of) was made impossible for those not "well versed" in the wiki-political issues surrounding said editor. I suppose the proper thing to do, would be to ask oneself how would the AFD look like if it wasn't a wiki-editor being discussed, and this is a question I cannot answer.

7. What in your opinion is the worst BLP issue at the moment, and what would you do to resolve it using your admin tools?

A. I don't believe there is a "worst" BLP issue. But there is a big problem with how the community handles "issues", including BLP-related, newbie treatment, BADSITES, and (to a certain extent) the classic inclusionism vs deletionism. On one side you have editors claiming that the issue is a "make or break" problem for Wikipedia, and on the other side, you have editors who refuse to even acknowledge that the issue exists. Such a clash of stances creates a hostile editing environment, leading to blocks, bans and burnout of good editors. I don't have a solution for this. As far as I can tell, this is Wikipedia's modus operandi.

8. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?

A. Depends on what PII includes. If it's just a name, I don't believe much is needed other than just recommending to the editor to omit his name (or even have it deleted). But if it further includes contact info (such as an address or phone number) or other clearly private info (birth date, school, etc.), such info should be deleted and suppressed, and the editor warned against reposting said info.

Additional optional question from Hobit

9. Say we have an in-arguably notable porn actress from the 1960s who is still alive today. No known public domain pictures of her are known to exist and she is known to not be interested in having pictures taken of her. A user has posted a (clothed) full-body picture of the actress from a 1960's magazine arguing that even if a picture of her could be taken today, it wouldn't represent the "characteristics" for which she is notable. It is taken to FfD where 2 admins argue it is replaceable and 3 other users argue that any picture would be hard to get and the characteristics issue is valid. How do you close it and why? Hobit (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A. I'd like to state that, as unlikely it is that I will close AFDs, it is even more unlikely that I'll close FFDs. XFDs in general aren't really my cup of tea. I've participated on a few which I came across and found interesting, but it's not one of my main interests in wikipedia.

In this hypothetical case, it is generally accepted that non-free images of living people cannot be used, other than exceptional circumstances such as uniqueness of time or context which cannot be reproduced. It is a legitimate question, whether a picture of the actress from her 'active' years falls under this exception. With less than 4 arguers on each side, I feel that the question hasn't been sufficiently explored, and would opt to 're-list' the discussion, if that is an option at FFD (I've only once participated in an FFD, if I recall correctly). If I do not have this option (hypothetically or not) I would close it as keep. A widely published, clothed picture (I'm assuming it's widely published as it's a magazine scan) from 40-50 years ago does not pose a significant BLP problem to override the discussion, which is leaning to keep. As I stated in q6, for BLP-related issues I'd rather find borderline consensus than none at all.

Let me emphasize again that this answer is purely hypothetical, and is hypothetical in each of it's phases: I would close the discussion only if I had to, and as 'keep' only if I couldn't re-list.

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

10. What's your take on IAR?

A IAR is an important policy on Wikipedia, a guiding principle which keeps us building and improving the encyclopedia, and not just following rules for the sake of following rules. However, IAR is also too often abused. Ideally, IAR should only invoked retroactively, before being made aware of the rule-breaking. If one knows in advance of a problem in a rule, one should first work to change said rule. In my opinion, more important than IAR, is using commonsense and keeping in mind consensus. If you invoke IAR against consensus, you need to ask yourself if you really are improving the encyclopedia. The consensus-building model on which Wikipedia operates, though far from perfect (see q7), is what brought us to where we are today. And undermining that model can never to said to be clearly improving the encyclopedia.

General comments

• Links for Rami R: Rami R (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rami R can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rami R before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Experience is reasonably varied with vandal fighting, AfD experience, also takes part in policy discussion. A polite and intelligent editor. A little light on the content building but I think there is enough other stuff here for a support. Polargeo (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. - This user has plenty of experience. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 13:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Sure, no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Good candidate, good answers. Cloudbound _{(formerly Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Suppport. I'd like to see a higher edit count and perhaps a little more experience in the project space, but at the end of the day, this is a long term, obviously dedicated, intelligent editor who knows what they're doing and is willing to help. The answers to the questions show that the candidate has enough clue not to do anything stupid like delete the Main Page. As long as they tread carefully and ask for help when needed, I'm sure Rami R will make a good administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Support I see nothing problematic here. Seems to be a good user and will likely do well as an admin. JodyB _talk 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Support per above. Seems to be ready. Helpful, polite, well versed. Takes part in policy discussions. No indications on talk page of errors in CSD tagging or policy application. Did not see any declined CSD's. No evidence of recklessness. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. No reasons to oppose. Answers to questions are sound (especially CSDs). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Low-profile, modest editor with no obvious history of quarrels or mistrust. This is exactly the type of editor I want as an admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Level-headed editor working in a contentious area. Best of luck, GlassCobra 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. Sole Soul (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - Looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. Sure, looks good to me. Fences&Windows 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
14. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
15. Support If he can handle life in I/P threads he can handle anything. Nick mallory (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
16. Support very enthusiastically. Icewedge (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. All I require from an admin is the ability to apply consensus or policy, and where the two conflict to make the appropriate judgement call. Rami passes that test as far as I'm concerned. WFCforLife (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
18. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
19. Support On first glance, I thought I was going to oppose this candidate due to relatively low experience, but after a bit more digging that's not the case. I've looked at quite a bit of the candidate's work, and I see a calm and level-headed person who understands how Wikipedia works. Looking at comments on past RfAs, I see understanding of what's needed to be an admin too. The candidate clearly isn't going to do anything contentious (eg in RFPP) without gaining more experience first. I'm also not worried about a low monthly edit count, as it's quality that counts, and quality is what I see. I'd be happy to hand over a mop. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Support So far the opposers didn't come up with anything so I'd like to throw my little weight to this side. many edits ≠ clue, many edits ≠ experience. --Pgallert (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Has enough experience for me, and displays sufficient clue. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
22. Support - Clearly knowledgeable about policies and where to find which ones apply in a given situation, and displays excellent communication skills. Will be a further asset as an admin.  Frank  |  talk  12:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
23. Support even though he doesn't make 15,000 edits per month. God forbid someone have a life outside Wikipedia. BLGM5 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    Weak Support - I've been giving this a lot of thought. On the positive side, you have just enough general experience to not be a concern to me (3,000+ edits spread around to various areas, and you've been on the project for awhile). You have been participating in a toxic area (Israel/Palestine) without any blocks so your temperament must be pretty good. You don't have a lot of experience with admin areas, but the one area you seem most interested in (AIV) is also where you've been most active (though still not very active). What pushed me barely past being neutral is your thoughtful way of answering the questions presented so far. I'll continue to support you unless someone finds something negative, in which case I'd move to neutral or even oppose depending on how serious it is. -- Atama頭 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Changed to oppose. -- Atama頭 16:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

24. Support Rami R has demonstrated his cluefulness and trustworthiness through his contributions and answers above. He is also level-headed, which is definitely a plus. Rje (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
25. Support Looks good, and yes, we do need more admins in certain time zones. Ray^Talk 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
26. Support While your experience in the WP area is generally lower than I would prefer, I see very good things from you; User:Atama put it well. I see nothing to indicate you will misuse the tools, so WP:WTHN. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
27. Support, as I see nothing to suggest any issues. Aiken ♫ 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
28. Support based on the evaluations of others above. I have not looked into the candidate's contributions in detail, but taking the supports and opposes at face value want to affirm that 3 years presence and 3000 edits, with some minimal participation in admin related areas, is more than adequate to judge whether he will break the encyclopedia. Martinp (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
29. Support There are some experience issues and a nod to the opposers. However I am inspired by the answers to the questions and think you would be a net positive with the tools. Also, unlikely to delete the main page.... or indeed the talk page of WP:BN *cough* :) Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
30. Support I understand the experience issues raised by the opposers, however from what I see from Rami is positive and the contributions he has made to administrative fora is significant and enough for me to support and that he will make a constructive admin. Valley2city^‽ 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Has been around since Aug 2006 and do not any scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
32. Support This user has built enough, dealt with contentious editors in a firm but fair manner, and gosh darn it, I like them! --StaniStani  22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Seems experienced enough and has good answers to questions. --Banana (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Would like to see an explanation for the edits mentioned in the oppose section.--Banana (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
34. Support Just learn how to spell "Summary" right! =D (Just search for "Sumery" in this page!)  Awesomeness  talk  02:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
35. Support We need admins who do the small and little-noticed jobs of Wikipedia as well as those who do the large and highly-publicised jobs of Wikipedia. Yes, it's good to be able to get highly-recognised content, but you don't need any GAs or FAs to do a good job as an admin. Three years of doing good work is definitely enough experience to be an admin. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
36. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
37. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
38. Support I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
39. Support sure.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
40. Should be fine. Tim Song (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
41. OK. Him be fine. — JoJo • Talk • 01:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
42. Why not? Looks unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. You have enough experience that I am not particularly concerned that you will make a mistake or abuse the tools. Good Luck! Eluchil404 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. This isn't a candidate who's been racking up thousands of edits over a few months in preparation for an RfA, but has consistently been contributing for several years. I'm sure they have sufficient experience for the tools. Swarm^(Talk) 06:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
45. Risker (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
46. Support- why not? Seems to be a responsible and sensible user. Reyk _YO! 08:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
47. Support- I offer my full support for this candidate, someone with knowledge and experience in my opinion would make a better administrator then someone whose sole goal is to have a huge edit count. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
48. Support, I do not view a massive edit count as a necessary prerequisite for being a thoughtful and competent administrator. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC).
49. Support While the edit count is low, the actions appear thoughtful. --SPhilbrickT 13:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
50. Support Excellent answer to #10. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
51. Support longterm user, seems civil and clueful. ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
52. Support The candidate appears to have a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies, and the answer to Q10 in particular impressed me. Rami R seems thoughtful, articulate, humble, and dedicated. Even with only ten edits to WP:UAA, the candidate appears to understand WP:U just fine, so that's not concerning. 38 edits to WP:AIV is plenty; WP:VANDAL is not a tough policy to comprehend. His response to SilkTork below shows that he can recognize when he is wrong – a good quality to see in an admin. I encourage him to keep up the good work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

    His response does not show that he can recognize when he is wrong. Quite the opposite. I pointed out examples of Rami R inappropriately removing talkpage comments - indeed, at one point engaging in an edit war over such removals. Rami R did not feel that was wrong, indeed they defended themselves, and then incorrectly cited a guideline in defence. Now if Rami R had reflected on the fact that someone had previously told them that removing such comments was inappropriate, and had taken on board my observations, and said something along the lines of "OK, I will take more care in future", I would agree with you. But that is not the case. Rami R still feels that suppressing legitimate concerns about bias is acceptable, and has misread the guideline. I have concerns about this candidate's judgement, temperament, and attitude. If Rami R is being aggressive and unpleasant at the moment, and going around deleting comments they don't agree with, I think that giving them greater powers isn't wise. SilkTork *^YES! 13:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

53. Support per great discussion on CSD, admin conflict of interest, admitting lacking knowledge in some areas, and seemed to have no problem expressing him or herself in any of the essays. Edit count might be low per month as a whole but that in no way disqualifies the candidate on the "can we trust them?" flag. I would be extremely disappointed if this ended up unsuccessful per things like GA/FA content since the major focus is to see if the user has earned community trust. To say, I have no problem saying 'yes'. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. I'd normally be wary of supporting a candidate with a relatively low level of content-building (and fully understand why those who have, have), but looking through your contributions I see a thoughtful, level-headed editor with a sound understanding of Wikipedia policy, the desire and ability to de-escalate conflict, and the self-awareness to review your own decisions and learn from them. On balance I believe you'd be a fine asset to the admin team. EyeSerene^talk 09:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
55. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
56. Support, looks fine to me. Experience is on the low side but it's clear you know what you're doing; and while there are a few concerns in the oppose section I don't view any of them as particularly major. Definitely a net positive. ~ mazca ^talk 09:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
57. Support. Trustworthy, knowledgeable and aware of his limitations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

    But I would very much like to see a positive response to SilkTort's comment at Support #52. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

58. Support -- 3 ¢ soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
59. Strong Support SmokeyJoe said it all.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
60. Support Strong candidate, see no issues here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
61. Support No one is experienced in admin work until he becomes one, because all the scripts (+rollback permission) aren't the real thing (in my opinion). The main questions, in my opinion, is whether the user will be helpful and whether he will do some admin work. I got the impression that the answer for both question is yes, so therefore I support this nomination. Broccoli (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry about being the first to oppose you, but I see very little experience in admin , such as RFPP, AIV, and UAA. I suggest you withdraw and try again when you have gained more experience. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

   Rami R has 38 AIV, 12 ANI, 13 RfC and 10 UAA edits (I just quickly checked the last 5 users Rami R has reported to UAA and they have all been blocked). I suspect there is a general case of worrying that we cannot trust an editor with so few edits. There must be something wrong! Rami R also has 332 pages patrolled and 34 pages moved. This is an editor with plenty of clue and experience editing in a tough area despite a lowish edit count. I have over 6000 edits and I have neveronly once requested page protection (RFPP). but Rami R has requested page protection before and it has been done. How can an editor with so few edits have so much clue is the question I would ask. Polargeo (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

   At best, the user is careful, reads everything, and legitimately spends a lot of time on the project. At worst, you get stuff like this, unfortunately. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

   I get the sense looking at a regular edit pattern over a period of three and a half years with nothing particularly controversial in that time that if Rami R was some sort of sock suspect of a banned user then I would have to equally suspect you as being a sock of a banned user trying to hide the fact with your comment here :). Polargeo (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Per above. You fall short of my expectations of RfA hopefuls in regards to experience. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose. per above. You're a great editor and quite knowledgeable, but you fall short of my RfA expecations in terms of experience. Making ~150 edits a most months this past year and then sub-100 most months the year before isn't enough experience for me to support. On top of that, I see that you have indicated you wish to work in WP:RFPP; however, you have made a grand total of 6 edits to the page. The same goes for WP:CSD (according to your deleted contributions, you have made 26 CSD taggings, the vast majority being WP:CSD#G8 and WP:CSD#G7 taggings.) and WP:UAA (you have made 10 edits to the page). I don't mean to be overly critical or anything, and rest assured, it's nothing personal. I believe you're on the right track, but you just need a little more time on the project. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose per Fastily. I'd like to see a bit more experience. Airplaneman ^talk 00:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I don't think you have enough experience. Would be willing to reconsider at another RfA later on. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Regretful Oppose - Per Fastily. Sorry... smithers - talk 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Very much per Fastily, unfortunately. While I see you as a good user, I just don't see the experience in the desired areas.  fetchcomms☛ 03:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose but not because of anything I see particularly wrong. It's more a concern over experience in some admin related areas. I like the editing patterns I see generally, and I'm not especially worried about the volume of recent edits, but I think there is a lack of volume in the requisite areas right now. Obviously at a later RfA I would be inclined to support. Shadowjams (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Not yet (weak oppose) Trend seems to be fine, but the lack of admin areas AND the lack of content creation are not compelling. Come back in a month or three with a GA and some more activity (what's there seems fine, just not sufficient) in admin-related areas and I'll likely support. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
10. I agree with everyone above me. I don't believe you have enough experience yet. Sorry, iMatthew ^talk at 01:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
11. weak oppose/not yet worry about experience and policy knowledge. Yes, you can (and will) learn on the job, but I'd like to see more before being given the bit. I foresee this candidate being successful in 3-6 months if not this time. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Struck "weak" part. Issue raised by SilkTork worries me enough and the lack of significant contributions to counter-balance that are enough to make me think this would be a bad idea at this time. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose. When there is little material to look at because the editor has made few contributions, there is greater pressure on that material to be good, or at least, not negative. I was a bit concerned that there are a number of messages in Rami R's archive - User_talk:Rami_R/Archive_1 in which the user has assumed bad faith, or has engaged in little edit wars - he accuses a good faith editor, Emesz, of vandalism, and handles Furtive admirer's edits on Jonathan Pollard in a hostile and heated manner, which creates heat and ugliness - threatening Furtive admirer with being blocked, [1] and escalating the matter by taking it to ANI [2]. I prefer to see editors dealing with such matters in a calm and reasonable manner. And I was then even more concerned by this talkpage edit war in which Rami R needlessly suppresses another user's comment. In random dips into Rami R's edit history I see a tendency to remove comments from talkpages, such as here and here - I find such comments can be useful as a reflection of the views of other readers and editors toward potential POV in an article. The Israel - Palestine situation is complex and carries potential for disruption, hence the need for sensitivity in what is being suppressed on a talkpage. While the examples may be considered old, or small, it is what I turned up in my search, and I didn't find contrasting evidence of friendly, co-operative, helpful consensus building. Such is the nature of a random dip into someone's edit history. SilkTork *^YES! 17:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

    In the first two issues you raise, yes, I was wrong in my approach. But do note that the Emesz incident happened more than 3 years ago, and I wrote of the Furtive_admirer incident in q3. As for the talk-page removals, I guess we have a major difference of opinion here. I do not view removing nonconstructive personal attacks as needless suppression. Nor do I view discussion-forum-like commentary as beneficial to Wikipedia. The Israel-Palestine situation is indeed a complex one, and that is exactly why we should be strict in enforcing the talk page guidelines, before talk pages become overwhelmed with nonconstructive commentary and emotional luggage. Rami R 12:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

    The talk page guidelines say that "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." I would suggest that when someone reverts your removal of someone's comment, that you might consider if you are exercising that caution. Getting into an edit war over such a situation is not helpful. And I don't see where the guidelines encourage removal of these comments, which appear to be legitimate expressions of concern that the article is biased. The comment questioning the possible bias in the term "recognize Israel or its right to exist", appears to me to be a comment worth considering - the term "right to exist" is politically sensitive, and some awareness in the article of the history of the term might be worth thinking about. I think you are suppressing in good faith, but your suppression is not in line with guidelines or the spirit of Wikipedia, and might be seen by those who are being suppressed as a sign of intolerance and or pushing a POV. SilkTork *^YES! 09:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

13. Oppose - per SilkTork's analysis, which I find convincing. Jusdafax 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose: Per SilkTork - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Moved to support.

14. Oppose I am reluctant to oppose on just a single issue where the candidate says he won't be particualrly active in, but I think the general frame of thought that would rather close a borderline disputed AfD as keep or delete than close as non-consensus is the sort of approach, that, however well meant, will ineivtably result in increased conflict within the project. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per Silktork and the observation from the talk page history that the candidate seems a little bit short fused. Admins need to be able to keep cool in the face of provocation. LK (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose Anybody who believes in a "borderline consensus" should be required to read WP:Consensus until she understands it. This is not just an AfD point; an admin's job is to enforce consensus where it exists. This cannot be done by someone who does not know what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
17. oppose per DGG, Silktork and Pmanderson. I'm not convinced that the user in general has enough grasp of policy and general procedures. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose - almost there, but not quite per User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
19. Weak oppose per the somewhat limited overall contrib record. Only 308 edits to Wikipedia+Wikipedia talk in more than 3.5 years of editing seems rather thin. Also, DGG raises a valid point. Nsk92 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose per the candidate's incivility and hotheadedness (as shown by the diffs provided by SilkTork), a lack of experience in the general admin areas, and a low monthly edit count rate. Laurinavicius (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose The talk page comment removal issue is alarming. It's hardly indicative of a poor attitude, but it may be indicative of poor judgment, and when that poor judgment is in the context of removing other editors' contributions, that is of significant concern when evaluating someone's prospects as an administrator. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose per limited experience. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose This one may be borderline in the percentages, but I think the opposers have it. This candidate lacks the experience to properly demonstrate policy knowledge. His talk page experience is limited and frankly not stellar as pointed out above. When a candidate comes to us with limited demonstrated experience, you want to have your socks knocked off. I don't see that here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose - I had given a weak support before, as I was just on the edge between supporting and staying neutral. SilkTork's findings pushed me over into oppose territory. I don't see good judgment in removing those talk page comments. I myself have removed comments from talk pages that were inappropriate per WP:NOT#FORUM, but the comments removed were discussing the article. The idea that hot subjects like Israel/Palestine should have stricter talk page enforcement in the way that Rami R suggests is a very poor one; tensions are already high, and removing others' comments is a tactic likely to only inflame people. -- Atama頭 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I have no reason to oppose. I am though concerned with experince (edit count though does not to me qualify as a reason to oppose). Twinkle work is admirable and there is times in the day that we need more admins checking this at AIV. But i do expect admins to have content building skills. There is some here, but not enough i think. I believe article writing allows you to understand others positions in the event of a conflict which certainlty as an admin you will be asked to resolve. Just not enough here to support yet, but I certaintly do not oppose you as being an admin, I just cant support (at this time, but your almost there I think). Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral User has a clue, but I don't feel they have enough experience. My apologies I really wanted to support this RfA but cannot :( -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Like the neutrals above, I don't see a compelling reason to oppose, although the edits raised by SilkTork do create some reservations. But mostly the nominee's limited experience keeps me from supporting. --RL0919 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral - Rami seemed to beat around the bush on all three answers to my questions. I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral/Support - First of all welcome to Wikipedia. Second, welcome to RFA :-). With that said, I would be more than happy to move to the support column if your edit count was a little higher than 3,300 edits. Am I one to look at edit count as the sole source to express an opinion of Aye or Nah? No! However, an edit count does give me, and others, an opportunity to see how a candidate deals with different situations over an extended time period. Especially when an editor is active. Looking over your edit history, I see an editor that is not only committed to the virtues and ideals of Wikipedia, but an editor who takes what they do as a personal affirmation of those virtues and ideals. However, a few edits here and a few edits there, does not give the community an idea of what you may think or do in a situation where a instantaneous response is necessary in an administrative role. Look closely at the advice given in the Oppose column, from the more established and respected editors here at Wikipedia, take it to heart, and hopefully either way this consensus comes out you will be a better editor. The aspect of being an administrator here at Wikipedia is over blown, the lowly editor is actually a more valuable asset :-). Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:59, 9 March 2010 (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.