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

Thank you all for participating in my RFA! I am honored by the trust you've put in me, and will do my best to meet your expectations. Opposers, I acknowledge the concern, and promise to not jump head first where I've not yet gained sufficient experience.

Again, thank you! Rami R 12:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rami R[edit]

Final (66/12/8). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 11:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Rami R (talk · contribs) – Almost a year wiser (I hope), I return to trial of RFA, ready as one can be to receive your fair criticisms and evaluations. I've been an editor for over four years now, for the most part focusing on Israeli politics. Rami R 11:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to help with administrative backlogs as needed. Specifically AIV, RFPP, and UAA.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my most significant contribution would be rfppClerk, a clerking script for RFPP, the most commonly used cleaning method for RFPP in use today. Another contribution I'm proud of is maintaining Talk:Jerusalem/capital, a collection of discussions regarding Jerusalem and its status as capital. Article writing isn't my exactly my best skill, but I do know how it's done: I've polished up Jerusalem bulldozer attack to GA status, and created one stub article (Eliezer Rivlin).
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: Israeli politics naturally isn't the easiest topic to handle, and stressful situation do arise frequently. For the most part, I've learned not to take conflicts to heart too much. Wikipedia isn't a race and there's no deadline.
During my "formative years" here on Wikipedia I didn't handle disputes too well, escalating disputes and being too strict in my interpretation of policies, when I should have been more patient. Since then I believe I've learned the decorum expected of a Wikipedian, and more importantly why. (Also, I continually learn the insufficiency in template warnings, despite their convenience)
Additional optional question from Mkativerata
4. To what extent would you consider yourself to be an involved administrator in respect of editorial and user conduct disputes related to the Israel-Arab-Palestinian conflict? What would that mean in practice for your use of the tools in such disputes?
A: The conflict is a significant interest of mine, both on Wikipedia and off. As an Israeli I have vested interest. While I try my best to maintain neutrality and act in an unbiased way, I can't completely disconnect emotionally. As such I consider myself involved when it comes to the conflict, and will not take administrative actions in related disputes (except for dealing with blatant vandalism, etc.).
Additional optional question from 28bytes
5. Since June 2010 you have averaged about 60 edits per month, made 1 UAA report, and 1 protection request to RFPP. Since you expressed interest in working in these two areas, do you foresee yourself being more active both in these areas, and on Wikipedia in general, if given the tools?
A: Yes. The past half year hasn't been the most stress-free in my life, especially the past three months with what's shaping to be my last semester of BSc studies. During that time when I was on Wikipedia, I didn't spend much time patrolling, thus specifically the reduced admin-noticeboards activity. But now with the semester behind me, all tests completed, and various other issues resolved, I expect to have much more time available for Wikipedia, at least for the near future.
Specifically re RFPP: working on rfppClerk means relatively frequent readings of the RFPP page. So I am pretty confident regarding the protection policy and practices. Alas, reading a noticeboard doesn't generate proven experience.
Additional optional question from ArcAngel
6. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
A: An ip user who hasn't been warned recently, or hasn't vandalized after a level 3 or 4 warning (or a recent release from a block). Users who aren't engaged in vandalism (e.g. edit-warring or pov-pushing; may defer to ANI for such cases). Stale cases. This is what comes to mind right now, I'm sure there's more reasons.
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
7. When is it acceptable to block a user without giving him or her any warnings? Do you think the current four-warning system too strict, too lenient, or just right?
A: Blocking without issuing a warning first is acceptable when the user's disruption is unquestionably bad faith (e.g. blatant vandalism) and is severe to the point where leaving the user unblocked would cause the encyclopedia significant damage (e.g. page move vandalism). That's the general case. In addition there are special cases, such as legal threats and sock-puppetry.
The four level warning system is good as it allows response flexibility. However, many editors are somewhat strict in applying all of them, even when it's clear the vandal is not going to stop. I suspect this even encourages the vandal to continue, as it builds up curiosity to see the next level (anyone played Warcraft here? remember clicking on the soldiers just to hear their response?).
Optional question from Baseball Watcher
8. What would be your criteria for blocking a user at WP:AIV and protecting a page at WP:RfPP?
A: AIV: the reported user has vandalized (or spammed) after a recent level 3 or 4 warning or after being recently released from a block. (recent being a less significant factor for registered users). Warnings may not be necessary for cases which are both blatant and severe (see q7).
Semi at RFPP: cases of ip/newly registered user disruption which cannot be feasibly countered via blocks. As a rule of thumb: at least 3 vandals in the past 24 hours, or a vandal a day in the past week, where the disruption by ips/newly registered outweighs the constructive edits by ips/newly registered.
Full at RFPP: a multi-party edit war, where the edit war can't be stopped by blocking just one or two users. Also high-risk templates (templates that are transcluded across many pages, so vandalism there would have a much wider effect than just the template).
Additional optional question from Lear's Fool
9. At your last RfA, you indicated that you would not be closing deletion discussions if you became an administrator. Has this changed?
A: Nope, no change. XFD participation in general isn't really my cup of tea.
Additional optional questions from Armbrust
10. You have said that you wish to work at WP:RFPP. It is a common occurence that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?
A: 3RR is not an entitlement, but rather a hard limit. As such, the gaming editor may have his own contributions inspected, and may be warned or blocked accordingly. Also, protection, like blocking, is generally only used as a preventative measure, when there is clear evidence of its need. Therefor the request itself may be denied if the reporting editor did not take reasonable steps to avoid the edit-war (such as talk page participation), casting doubt as to the necessity of protecting the article.
11. If there was one thing you could change about Wikipedia (a new policy, or a new guideline, or something else entirely, for instance), what would it be, and why?
A: It's a tough question, one I don't think I can answer. While there are many problems in Wikipedia, such as how we choose our admins (sorry RFA participants); how we handle civil pov-pushers; and how we handle long standing content disputes (just look at Talk:Jerusalem/capital, something clearly isn't working), I don't have a solution to these issues. I suspect there aren't any simple solutions, and ultimately it comes down to deeper questions, on how we wish to continue as a project.
Optional question from Epeefleche
12. How would you handle the following scenario. Editor A complains that Editor B is wikihounding him. A review of their interactions reveals: a) heated differences of view in the past; and b) a number of instances of Editor B appearing at obscure articles that Editor A has edited, and editing in a manner that can be anticipated to upset Editor A (reverts, challenging every unreferenced sentence, etc.). Editor B maintains he is simply editing withing wikipedia's guidelines, and denies the wikihounding charge.
A: The question of when does proper editing stop and hounding begin isn't an easy one. On the one hand, inspection of an editors contributions is not only allowed, it is even encouraged in some cases in order to find and take care of problematic editing. On the other hand, an editor intentionally antagonizing another editor by following their edits is not only rude, but disallowed by policy. Often issues become intermixed, bad behavior and bad faith from all sides breeding more bad behavior and bad faith from all sides.
Analyzing and determining where faults lie is no simple feat for a lone admin, especially when reports of this nature tend to devolve rather quickly, allowing only glimpses into the actual issues. A RFCU may be beneficial, allowing easier assessment. Eventual solutions may involve a topic ban, an interaction ban, or simple warning once the facts are set straight.
So back to the question of what I would do: if the situation is clear enough, I'd warn the relevant editors, or propose a topic/interaction ban for community consideration. If the situation isn't clear though, I may press for clarifications or suggest a RFCU.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Per this discussion around your withdrawal of your last RfA. However I must note your much lower overall activity level since the last RfA. I suspect that may cause some to conisder that you haven't addressed all the oppose concerns from last time. Having said that, I was so impressed with your ability to read consnsus and take the knock back last time in your stride; I'm 100% convinced you will not abuse or misse the tools which is what it comes down to. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, life doesn't always give time for Wikipedia. Many of the past years pressures have been eased however, so I expect that I'll have more time for Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. Rami R 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support (again).  Frank  |  talk  12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Last time I said things like "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" and "I'm also not worried about a low monthly edit count, as it's quality that counts, and quality is what I see". Since then I see more quality work - and the candidate's handling of the withdrawal last time was pretty impressive too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - No reason why not; a well-balanced editor who will make good use of the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, just as last time. GlassCobra 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tch... well this is an obvious one. I once thought Rami R to have already been an administrator. No reason to believe he will do anything unscrupulous with the added toolset. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Still no reason to think theyll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support. There is a lack of recent activity, but that's not a great concern. Candidate has proven himself to be competent and clueful and is obviously not interested in adminship as some sort of trophy, as evidenced by his withdrawal right at the need of his last RfA, even though he was in the discretionary zone and the RfA could have been closed, at least in theory, as successful. His RfPP clerking script is widely used and extremely helpful and he has some recognised content to his name. Certainly more help at AIV and RfPP would be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Although I do agree with Mkativerata's diffs, the intended admin areas of Q1 state that he will take part in RFPP, AIV and UFAA, and, as far as I can tell, the diffs were both located at deletion review, which isn't really the place where he is the most confident. I think he does deserve the tools, but I would avoid taking administrative actions in the DRV side of things. Minimac (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "He" :) Rami R 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I'll change it then (Couldn't tell the gender, so I just guessed). Minimac (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support just like last time. Courcelles 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support again. RayTalk 22:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Not particularly active, but quality is more important than quantity. As for the user's judgement of consensus, the user has proved to be capable before, and has clearly indicated desire to work at AIV, RFPP, and UAA. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that diff, that's very helpful as it suggests the DRV might have been a one-off. The question I have is why Rami opposed headcounting in August 2010, and then called for headcounting in the September 2010 DRV. If anyone could shed some light on that might help me because I'm genuinely thinking about flipping my !vote. I should say though that I don't buy the argument some are making that consensus-judging isn't a problem here because the candidate will only do AIV, RFPP, and UAA. As I read it, the candidate, entirely properly, hasn't ruled anything out (although has said AfD closes will be unlikely, and I take him at his word). He's merely given those three areas as specific examples of the backlogs he will help tackle. We have many backlogs that require determinations of consensus, like WP:RM. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support The candidate came close (72%) to passing first RfA, and in my view, has taken the appropriate amount of time and appropriate steps to improve. I find this notion that the candidate has not been active enough in recent months to be a red herring. I see plenty of activity over the long term--Hokeman (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yeah, yeah...I can certainly see some of the opposers' point, but not enough to oppose. T. Canens (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – I do have some activity concerns, but those are not enough to outweigh your quality work. —mc10 (t/c) 05:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Although the concerns in his first admin nomination were substantial and raised a few eyebrows for his admin capabilities, i think this time Rami is fully up to the task. The last time he did not have the experience but he does seem to have it now. I went through his contributions and he seems like he would be more than a suitable candidate. Someone65 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Blaming the editors lack of activity on him not caring for the project is really not considerate of the issues people face in RL. Many people donate to wikipedia but can't find the time to actually contribute. Do they care any less? I don't think that is fair. I'm sure the candidate will do fine.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. My concerns about Rami's ability to judge consensus pale in comparison to my concern that we might turn down an otherwise good candidate fo reasons of "recent inactivity" that have no apparent relevant to his capability to be an admin. Whether you call it "inactivity", "extreme inactivity" or whatever, the question is: how does it make him an unsuitable candidate? The only reason proferred so far is that inactivity demonstrates a lack of commitment or dedication to, or interest in, the project. In my view, that's an extraordinary leap of logic to a perjorative conclusion. Commitment and interest aren't measured by activity levels. They're measured by motivations and qualities. But of course those traits take more time and effort to judge than reading X!'s tool. In any case, some of our best editors are not highly active. We need editors and admins who have successful off-wiki lives -- busy and successful people will tend to make for good administrators. Conversely, it's also reasonable to speculate that some of our most highly active editors, even admins, are here mainly to push POV or for plain self-aggrandisement. Time spent on the project per day has absolutely nothing to do with commitment or dedication. This user's qualities are amply demonstrated by matters including his demeanour in both RfAs and the fact that he's participated in difficult areas of editing seemingly without coming anywhere near blocks or discretionary sanctions. If Rami is going to use the tools once a week, and use them well: good. It's better than not at all. As for my own concerns, I think the fact that three editors have commented adversely on the DRV diff I presented will be more than enough feedback for Rami to take on board in judging consensus in his administrative activities. I see no evidence that he's the kind of recalcitrant who would ignore it. So I'm now supporting. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've looked through your edits and can find nothing that unduly concerns me. Good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. RfAs basically boil down to the question: "do you trust this candidate?". Usually, I like to see a bit more edits: it's not mere editcountitis, but a way to reasonably evaluate if the admin candidate is clueful enough not to screw up; that's why I'd also like to see that an admin candidate is experienced in admin-related areas, because even good-faith mistakes can have serious consequences (admin actions can be easily undone, but their consequences cannot; a blocked newbie can be unblocked, but if he's been scared away, we've probably lost him for good). In this case, however, despite the low number of edits in general and in admin-related areas in particular, I believe this user has demonstrated through his demeanour that he's calm, level-headed and clueful enough to avoid using the button in the areas he doesn't have enough experience in or in cases where he's not certain. And I also agree with Mkativerata: If Rami is going to use the tools once a week, and use them well: good. It's better than not at all. WP:TL;DR, For all these reasons, I believe this user can be trusted with a few more buttons. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Admins don't have to be extremely active on the order of hundreds of edits a day. This user is simply a dedicated Wikipedia and I have no qualms trusting him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - people need to look further than the top of the edit counter page, where the total edits number is... We've got a person who's experienced in all the good areas. And he has a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Orphan Wiki 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support As per Pedro and No Red flags.See no concerns.Admin tools are not a exhaustible resource and issue in wikipedia has been over misuse of tools rather than limited use of tools and denying tools to this user does not create another admin elsewhere.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Clearly trustworthy. Has made a significant contribution and is cooperative in resolving disputes. Commitment to the role of admin suggests good understanding of its responsibilities. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support seems to know what he's doing; editor will be a net positive as admin. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Could have passed last time. Knows his way around, no red flags. Current edit rate is a red herring: if the dire predictions of the opposers come true and he is a "part-time admin", then we'll have gained... a part-time admin (like me). Assigning admin rights to an account doesn't detract from the work of other admins, and there is no quota at RfA. Fences&Windows 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Some valid concerns but none that seem that serious. Frequency of editing is not a good test for whether someone should be an admin (it doesn't make them any more likely to mess up). On the whole, looks good. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. People, come on. We are losing admins every week. We need to bring in new ones, period. What are the concerns? They are trivial. "Oppose - person appears to have a life outside of Wikipedia" is just not a valid reason to oppose. Is the person likely to abuse the tools? There's absolutely nothing here to indicate that he will. Is he likely to be a loose cannon, arrogant, unmindful of consensus and policy, or anything like that? No, he isn't. Is he likely, due to his relatively low level of activity, to make some mistakes due to not knowing all the ropes? Probably will. So what? Everyone does. He'll learn. He'll be fine. Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per Salvio, HJ, Mkativerata and Herostratus. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:24pm • 07:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Limited content contribution, but a good record of collaboration with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Above it is suggested that the opposition have cited the user's low volume of edits as a problem, but they haven't; what they are worried about is that the candidate has not edited heavily enough in areas that sysops frequently work in. I accept that that concern is valid, but reject the notion that it is serious enough to warrant not granting this user sysop status. The user is trustworthy, has an adequate understanding of the tools (as demonstrated here not by his experience in sysop areas, but by his answers to the questions and his record as a constructive contributor), and gives no obvious other reasons for concern. AGK [•] 14:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Appears to be reasonably competent and trustworthy. Pichpich (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support A history of quietly fixing things with no drama and no controversy. Thparkth (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Excellent editor, sufficient activity level, why not. Pantherskin (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Tommy! 19:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A net positive contributor to Wikipedia. E. Fokker (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - I agree with many of the opposes that more edits in admin-ish areas would be nice, but this user has been around for a while and has edited regularly. I have no reason to suspect the user will abuse the tools. Overall I see a net positive here. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 20:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I agree with Mkativerata, Salvio, Fences&Windows, and AGK. Has the candidate failed to jump through some hoops? Yes. But has the candidate demonstrated that he can be trusted? Yes, and a small positive contribution will still be a positive contribution. I like the answers to questions, and I went through the archives of his user talk, and through some of his I-P related talk page comments, and I see someone who spends a lot of time in a very difficult content area, and has handled himself in a way that shows me that he is trustworthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I still have concerns about this user reading concensus but the original opposer crossed out their oppose and it really doesn't have much substance. Lack of recent activity isn't a problem especially if the user is experienced on Wikipedia policies. Secret account 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, was neutral last time, now has the experience required for me to support. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Has a clue.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support From what I've seen, there's no reason not to trust Rami with the tools. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A7 shows cluefulness, which is much more important than rulefollowing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I trust this candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I really see no reason why not to oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Ditto. No reasons to deny the mop. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No negatives, relative lack of activity isn't a problem, lack of competence would be. AD 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per the above. Lack of experience (beyond an absolute minimum) can be worrying only insofar as it provides insufficient evidence to judge cluefulness. Here it is adequate to judge cluefulness. Martinp (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back to comment on the argument being offered by opposers that lower levels of activity are undesirable since "we don't need part time admins". I don't buy that at all. We want and need admins who are trustworthy, reliable, and clueful, with as much time as they are willing to dedicate. Doesn't matter if that is 0.2, 0.7, 1.0 or 1.5 times an "average workload". For all admins, I'd like to hope that they use good judgment when they should stay away from a specific situation since they won't be around to respond to queries in short order, but that's true regardless of "working hours". Martinp (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I don't have any doubts that he'd abuse the tools and has been really helpful with RfPP. I think he'll do a good job. Elockid (Talk) 04:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, essentially per HJ Mitchell above. The manner in which the candidate dealt with his previous RfA was quite endeering, and working in such a controversial area without running into significant trouble is a definite positive. I have reviewed every WP:AIV report in the last 12 months, and each one was accurate and appropriate. Finally, I find Mkativerata's response to concerns about recent activity convincing.  -- Lear's Fool 05:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Nor persuaded by the lack of experience opposes, don't see anything that makes me think the tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I'll be honest, the recent low activity bothered me a little, but not for the reason it's bothering the other participants here; the idea of either a part-time admin or a specialty admin doesn't particularly concern me. This is a volunteer site, and I see no reason to tell a candidate who volunteers to do task A that they can't unless they also agree do tasks B, C and D, and/or promise to do them for a certain number of hours per week. I take the candidate at his word that he will (A) be more active in the coming months (per the answer to question 5), and (B) not perform admin tasks that are outside his areas of strength (per this response).
    The reason I was reluctant to support is simply that Rami R should have anticipated that it would be a tough RfA to pass coming off a five-month stretch of very light activity; it would have shown better judgment (IMO) to have invested at least a month or two of the increased activity that he's already indicated he plans to invest, just to preempt the objections of many of the opposes who are (not unreasonably) concerned that he might get the tools and then not do anything with them due to a waning interest in the project. But if that's an example of a poor decision, I don't think it's a "fatal" one, and since Rami R has shown 100% accuracy making reports to the areas he wants to patrol as an admin, telling the candidate to come back in three months would just waste everyone's time when he could be at work blocking vandals and protecting pages. 100% accuracy is a pretty compelling reason to support, in my view. 28bytes (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Sure thing, no reason to oppose. Mop well deserved. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support The fact, that 20% of his edits are automated, bothered me a little, but his answers make it's clear, that he understands the policies and guidelines. I think he will be net positive admin. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - the candidate has worthwhile content work, is thoughtful, reliable, and seems to have an adequate understanding of policy. The relatively low level of activity is not sufficiently serious to deny adminship. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - adminship is no big deal; user trustworthy. Egg Centric (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Thoughtful responses to above queries.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Sees like a reasonable editor. Good answers, no indication he would misuse the tools. --Coemgenus 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Adminship is no big deal, so I will support you! Basket of Puppies 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support: Notwithstanding the "lack of activity" the candidate is clearly a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - trustworthy editor. From my perspective the candidate has more than sufficient experience. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Review of 20 random manual contributions shows that all were clean and well-sourced. Edit summaries on reverts also look good, as do the answers to the questions. Requiring some arbitrary number of edits per month won't get us better candidates, but accepting a well qualified candidate such as this will encourage others to run. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. A fine candidate. Acalamari 09:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
I'm sorry, because I supported you last time and I appreciate the answer to question 4. But you haven't been active much lately so I have to look at your contribs closely to see how you would approach key admin tasks. Like judging consensus. As far as I can see, the only recent occasions on which you've weighed into a discussion about how consensus should be judged are here and here. In those discussions you advocated overturning the close of an AfD essentially because there "wasn't so much as a majority supporting deletion", citing 50-55%. For disclosure, I was on the other side of that DRV. But whatever side you're on, ruling out a consensus because it only has bare majority support is an approach contrary to how administrators should determine consensus. If there had been other recent examples of participation in such forums that didn't raise red flags, I could be inclined to ignore it as an isolated example. But unfortunately there aren't those other examples, I'm sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Moved to support.[reply]
I understand the concern, and would like to make something clear: I have no intention of closing XFDs or DRVs. I don't even particularly enjoy participating in them as an editor. Rami R 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my residual concern is that there are many other forums where an admin's task is to judge consensus (RM, ANI, AE, ITN/C, policy discussions, etc). So it's a core capability of an admin rather than one quarantined to particular areas of activity. But I'm not wedded to my oppose, can be convinced to change my position, and will. Indeed, any more "not enough recent activity" opposes that don't explain what the problem is with that, and I might just switch tactically to balance them out! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I did want to try to avoid badgering anyone at this RFA, as the first supporter. Mkativerata, you've made a good point, and I respect your oppose (it does not sway me from my support, however!) but you clearly made a thorough review and came to your opinion, and I'm certainly not going to challenge it. I fully agree with your sentiments above. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mkativerata, I would have thought that you, as a one time admin (with a hugely successful RfA), would think that tactical 'outbalancing' is not objective !voting, and whether it is to even out the supports or the opposes, it is not really helpful or fair to the candidate. Kudpung (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Opppose Not enough experience in the areas that the candidate wishes to work. To wit: 59 edits to AIV, 34 to RPP, and just 12 to UAA. Also averaging just about 200 edits a month shows that you aren't around a great deal, and we don't need "part-time" admins.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with a part-time admin, per se? Surely it's good for (a) admins to "have a perspective" by having a life off the project, and (b) for our admin corps to be full of smart hard-working people who have busy and successful lives off-wiki? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Averaging 200 edits are fine, as people usually have a life outside Wikipedia, having less than 50 edits is a problem. Secret account 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Mkativerata dif, vote counting is a real problem, and that's not how we create consensus. Secret account 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Lack of activity in recent months, as well as only four page creations. I'm not one to be big on that sort of stuff, but those to combine further my oppose. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's true - I alluded to it in my support; but could you explain why this is an issue? Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rami R has only made more than 100 edits in a month once since 2010/5. 30-60 monthly edits over the past 9 months is not a lot; I'm not trying to go "editcountitis" here; but more so 30-60 edits a month shows lack of activity. I would like to see more from a new/potential admin. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is why is a low level of recent activity, for an otherwise experienced editor, a ground to oppose? How does it affect his suitability for the position? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was a steady 125+ edits a month (which is not hard to do -- it's around 5 edits a day or so) I would be more obliged to support. 30-60 edits does not show much dedication to the project, we obviously have different ideas on low activity and extremely low activity. To elaborate; Rami R has only created four pages. Four pages! I would like to see more than that from a admin candidate. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, as an admin I have to make heaps of pages. (Obviously this is sarcasm and creating pages has literally nothing to do with adminship.)  狐 FOX  23:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. What ArcAngel said. Concerns with experience and lack of recent activity. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose More experience. I see you only have 4,429 edits according to X!'s edit counter despite creating an account a few years ago, respectively. I would like to see more recent activity out of you such as working on AFD discussions or GA or DYK nominations. WayneSlam 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose due to lack of recent activity. Need more work in admin areas such as AfD, UAA, etc. Logan Talk Contributions 05:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Several directions that I could go with this one, but I will keep it simple by saying that I do not feel that the candidate meets my standards. I'm also rubbed the wrong way by the fact that both of the candidate's runs at adminship have been self-noms. I'm sorry, Rami, but I can not support this attempt, but am grateful and respectful of your desire to contribute. --Strikerforce (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikerforce. You standards would be lot more compelling if they said "I will not support a candidate with any of the following.... because if they have any of the following they will probably not be a good admin. But you can't, because your standards are, basically, just random. For instance, your standards say "I will not support a candidate with lengthy gaps in their edit history that can not be explained by legitimate real world reasons". But your standards do not say "I will not support a candidate with lengthy gaps in their edit history that can not be explained by legitimate real world reasons because if they have such gaps they will probably not be a good admin". Your standards don't say that because that it wouldn't be true. In fact there is no established correlation between lengthy activity gaps and how good at administration a given editor will be. It's just something you made up. So, you know, maybe you should rethink you standards. We need admins. Ditto for the self-nom standard. Being coy is not correlated with being a good admin. Herostratus (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    Are you trying to get me to change my position? Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. The reason that I include the statement about lengthy gaps in a candidate's edit history is because I do not want to see a user become an administrator if they appear prone to long gaps in their contributions to the encyclopedia. While I recognize and certainly understand the fact that we are all here as volunteers who choose to contribute on our own free will, I feel that if you are going to ask for the administrative tools, you should commit to being around on a fairly regular basis. Also, notice that I said "Several directions that I could go with this one"... that is to say that the reason that I chose to touch on in this oppose was not the only factor that led to my decision. Another large influence was one that has already been pointed out above; the fact that the candidate has very little experience in the areas that they have indicated that they would like to work in is a problem for me. As I mentioned in my statement, I am grateful and respectful of the candidate's desire to contribute, but I do not believe that they need the mop. --Strikerforce (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    OK. But... "The reason that I include the statement about lengthy gaps in a candidate's edit history is because I do not want to see a user become an administrator if they appear prone to long gaps in their contributions to the encyclopedia. While I recognize and certainly understand the fact that we are all here as volunteers who choose to contribute on our own free will, I feel that if you are going to ask for the administrative tools, you should commit to being around on a fairly regular basis." As long as it's understood that that is simply a idiosyncratic personal preference that has nothing to do with whether he will be a good admin or not, much like voting against a candidate because he's wearing a plaid tie in his userpage pic or whatever. OK, got it. Herostratus (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point or the reason that you are choosing to badger me about this. Your argument makes me believe that you don't feel that any user should have predefined "standards". After all, by your example, any predefined standards may be "like voting against a candidate because he's wearing a plaid tie in his userpage pic or whatever". At this point, sir, I'll ask you to bring this conversation to my talk page if you would like to continue it, because I really don't see the point of continuing it in the scope of this particular RfA. My decision has been made and, quite frankly, your continued badgering is not helping me reconsider that decision, as I perhaps might have before someone chose to insult me by essentially calling out my standards. As I have now stated twice, the gap in the candidate's issue is not the only reason that I chose to oppose this run. I wish the candidate the best of luck moving forward and - as it appears that this run will succeed and they will be granted the mop - I will support their position and duties as an administrator. The very process of building consensus means that sometimes we, as individuals, will be in the minority and that's okay. --Strikerforce (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC) switching to neutral[reply]
  6. Although I'm relaxing my standards in general, you've done very little with the project over the last 8 months. I can't support someone who isn't interested enough in Wikipedia to do any significant work, even if you used to be interested in the past. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose There are plenty of dedicated Wikipedians who rack up ten to twenty times more manual edits in quasi administrative zones and who don't dream of wanting to be sysops. I mean even doing a quick twenty minutes a day on NPP without even doing drive-by tagging would change a lot. I'm afraid that after doing my own homework, I have to go with the flow on the low level of activity. Kudpung (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I really don't think this user has enough experience and lack of enough edit even though he has been editing since 2006. I also notice that this user only has reviewer rights and I don't think I can accept that. Baseball Watcher 17:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can add the rollback flag to the candidates account right now if it helps? Or is the lack of current user rights a red herring, and really it's just edit count? Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just the lack of edits. Baseball Watcher 20:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not enough experience yet, and low edit volume worries me - I know the user said I expect to have much more time available for Wikipedia, at least for the near future - but expectations don't always materialise - come back when you have demonstrated that you do have more time for editing on Wikipedia. Also suggest get yourself as a rollbacker and do some serious anti-vandal work.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand (if we're assuming that the candidate is competent) why having an admin that edits infrequently but regularly is less preferable to not having that admin at all. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say competent - I said not enough experience and suggested more experience in combating vandalism, which tends to be a major part nowdays. Also policies and guidelines do change, and if they aren't here very often, then how will they keep up.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would make two points regarding that last question. The first is that policies and guidelines don't really change. They do evolve (slowly) but the overwhelming majority of changes aim at clarifying them, not at changing their core principles. In the rare case where there is significant change (say BLP) the fuss and drama is so loud and persistent that anyone even remotely active will know it's happening. My second point is that there are currently 500+ semi-active admins who are doing a fine (part-time) job. You're an admin: do you really think you would become incompetent if you spent a year with "only" 1000 edits? Pichpich (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: I have looked at his editing (or lack thereof) over the past 9 months and his lack of activity is a real concern. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ret Prof. Normally I find your arguments persuasive but here you haven't really put one forward. Why is lack of activity a concern? Does it matter if he only makes one edit a day, assuming that edit is good? Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, you appear to be taking quite an interest in questioning the opposition in this RfA... any reason for that? --Strikerforce (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - I'm supporting the candidate. It's fairly standard to expect supporters to challenge opposers (and vice versa although I admit that happens less) - in particular where rationales are poor. Or did you have a bad faith motive for your question seeing as the answer to it is really pretty self evident? Pedro :  Chat  09:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, no assumptions at all, just curious. :) --Strikerforce (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, I considered what you said and will be changing to support. Notwithstanding the "lack of activity" the candidate is clearly a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose I've looked over your edits between November and January, if you take out the clerking and fiddling with archive templates, you are left with a handful of vandalism reverts and warnings and a couple of tweaks. I can accept that you had important real life issues and I'm glad that you focused on them, but I'm a little confused as to why you'd run for RfA the moment you're getting back up to speed. WormTT 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per most of what the neutral voters and the opposes commenting on activity have to say. Unlike the neutrals, though, I prefer to express such a lack of support though an opposition. Looking at the other oppose rationales, I don't mind the self-nom, but the lack of content creation itself is doing you no favors. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Per others expressing concerns about low levels of activity since last June... averages out to two edits a day, which is hardly the level I want to see in an admin candidate. Q5 answer doesn't win me over either. I thank the candidate for willingness to be an admin but I cannot support. Best wishes in any case. Jusdafax 07:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral. If the answer to question 5 had been "no, not really" this probably would have been an oppose. The lack of recent activity is a concern, since there isn't a strong content creation record to balance it. The stub mentioned in question 2 was created as a BLP with no third-party references, with only an external link to the subject's CV, and it remained as such until a week ago. It was tagged as an unreferenced BLP last week; Rami R wisely added references to it at that point before transcluding this RfA. This would be a deal-breaker if the candidate were planning to focus on AfD closures, but none of the RFPP and UAA reports the candidate has submitted were declined, which does suggest at least familiarity with the policies for those areas in which Rami R intends to work. I haven't looked at the vandal-fighting/AIV stats (I'll let another !voter do that work), so for now I'm on the fence. 28bytes (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed each of the candidate's AIV reports in the last 12 months, and have found no problems. Each one led to a block.  -- Lear's Fool 05:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lear's Fool, a sincere thank-you for doing that research. Given that the candidate has 100% accuracy in the three areas he wishes to work in, I'll move to support. 28bytes (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Very little activity since last rfa. Not much has changed. You do have exp though bringing an article to GA. which i think demonstrates the knowledge of article builing ( a concern from the last raf in my neutral). Im leaning towards support here but ill take a closer look. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I supported last time. Neutral this time partly because of Mkativerata's diff, partly because I think having narrowly failed on activity grounds last time, it was a questionable decision to run after a period of lower activity. —WFC— 02:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I have to go with this since your activity is so low. It gives the appearance that you are losing interest in Wikipedia, since 30-40 edits per month is only one edit per day. Of your active months last year, four were in the first five months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IMO, a little premature nom; just would like to see more activity and a variety of experience in general. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A lack of recent activity is concerning, especially when one's edit count in a month can't even crack 100. I'll mull it over, since I want to support but am reluctant to. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Relatively low levels of activity and overall experience concerns. I don't see this a reason to oppose this time around, but I'm not compelled to support, either. Airplaneman ✈ 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This seems like a good candidate knowledge wise, certainly is saying the right things. However, at the same time, I have to admit that the numbers are an issue. This would have been a straightforward support had it been in June or so. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Not pleased with the candidate's edit count or overall lack of demonstrated experience in the areas that they state they are going to work in. However, after further review of contributions, interactions, and carefully considering some of the rationale provided in the support section above, I can not - with good conscience - state that this candidate receiving the mop would not be a net positive for the project. As such, I will not oppose, but at the same time can not outright support. --Strikerforce (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category