Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ramallite

message: What is so strange is that you seem to know more what I have to say than I. What I find so strange also, is that I am using ones ethnicity to support ones candidature without being aware of it. That’s most certainly what I find so strange. In cases you find other meanings for my answer, like you did with the other let me clarify by requesting an answer, even if, I don’t expect a meaningful one, it’ll help though if I get one. How on Earth, am I using ones ethnicity as reason for a support vote, by requesting what would it need for an Arab participating in a controversial subject like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to become an Admin? If the word “Arab” seems abrasive, then fine, replace it with the term “Martian.” Also, it’ll help to know how much more you will disturb this RfA, are you afraid that voters are not intelligent enough to make an enlightened choice? That’s all I had to say, I won’t disturb the process. Fadix 21:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arab" or "Martian" that is not the issue. You brought the origin of a person into the discussion and that really has nothing to do with adminship and you know it. Zeq 05:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment moved from the project page

message: :5.Use of realiable sources. In more than one occuastion you have cited as a source publications of the PLO NAD unit such as this publication:  . The creability of that source was called into question on the talk page more than once. The PLO NAD unit is described by Haaretz and other crediable sources as "The elite Palestinian diplomatic unit against Israel is the Negotiation Affairs Department in the PLO, which leads the propaganda battle against the separation fence and the settlements." Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#what_is_NAD_and_is_it_a_.22crediable.22_source. It was shown to you on the talk page that this is a unit that is funded by milllions of dollars and employ Harvard garduates to push a Palestinian POV all over the world ("According to the DFID, UK’s funding to the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) amounted to € 13,670,000 since 1999" , " Its high-profile spokesmen are American Palestinians, led by Harvard law graduate Michael Terzi.") . The question is why did you not follow the steps outlines in this Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_secondary_sources such as this one "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers' Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources. ". The subject matter (The israeli west bank barrier) is one of the heavily reported issues in the world yet you choose a highly biased source source while many other neutral ones (such as the UN - which is also not known in being completly impartial toward israel) are widely available ? Zeq 06:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NAD just happens to be an official Palestinian agency that has published an official Palestinian opinion against the wall. You have voiced constant opposition, but we cannot pick and choose who the official representatives are. If you have a problem with them, feel free to write an article about them (without cutting and pasting from Haaretz). They are funded from abroad just as the entire Palestinian Authority is funded by outside donations. I didn't choose them deliberately, they just happened to be the official Palestinian body with an opinion. I fail to see how your opposition to using them as a source is credible. Ramallite (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the section you quoted from WP:RS, Zeq, it cautions against the use of sources that are widely acknowledged to be extremist, like Stormfront, not sources with a bias. All sources have a bias. The NAD would be regarded as an appropriate source under that guideline. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NAD PLO, which Ramallite used as source as a propeganda outfit. I don't have to write an article about it to prove it - there are, as ramallite himslef pointed out, invistigations into this ouitfit by Haaretz newspaper which shows that NAD is a propeganda outfit compsed of Harvard graduates. Ramallite is aware of this. It is aware of the fact that it is an outfit finaced by millions of dollars to do propeganda and yet he uses them as source. Is that the right way to write an encycalopedia ? We are becoming a tool that echo a well finaced propeganda campaign. Zeq 23:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The British Home Office could similarly be said to be a propaganda outfit of the British government. Regardless of any editor's opinion of it, the NAD is used as a source by mainstream news organizations e.g. The Guardian, and it's regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia, though of course we'd bear in mind when using it that it's partisan, but that just means being careful not to rely on it too heavily or exclusively. But it isn't a source widely regarded as extremist, which is what's prohibited by WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NAD does propeganda. I guess what they say about the British home office is not the issue here. 
The policy sais: "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" - NAD is clearly a YES on all 4 questions, as such it is prohibited by WP:RS.Zeq 06:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 6.Do you assume that other editors act in good faith ? In this recent talk page Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#English_proficiency you have accused another editor of not using proper English and you wrote: "You are acting in bad faith, when I am offering to help you write your edits in good English." When your offer was accepted you have used the rewriting to interduce caustion between two facts that had no such causation in the source text ( a UN document). Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#maybe_someone_can_help_us - Do you consider "English_proficiency" as a mandatory pre requisite to edit Wikipedia or do you think that editors who's English is weak may not be able to identify places where bias is interduced in sattle ways such as the above dispute on causation. Zeq 07:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do assume that other editors act in good faith. My offer for help was not accepted, and was rather ignored in favor of continued disruption of the article in question. If one were to read the article now (especially the parts where you edited), one would see a lot of redundancy and repetition of the same sentences. I do not believe that editors with poor English should be shut out, but should rather accept that their entries be copyedited in good faith. Ramallite (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your offer, to the best of my memeory was accepted. The problem was that you used the rewording to intreduce causation in place where the original text had no such causation. Look you are not 100% biased editor I am sure you are doing well in 75% or above of your edits. You have done good work on many occastions. The problem is that when it has to do with such issues as "The effect the barrier have on Palestinians" you loose your sense of fairness, you are just too close to the issue. I can understand why. You are affected by it daily. I wish the occupation would be over as well. Zeq 23:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 7. You have responded to an error by a voter here very quickly so this answer my question about are you reading this page. Since you are reading it and responding to what goes on here I wonder why you did not answer questions 5 & 6 ? There is clear evidence on your talk page that there is quite a lot of "behind the scene" communiaction (e-mail) about this RfA that the rest of us can not see. What do you have to hide ? Why and by whom were you advised "not to respond to statements, unless they are direct questions, so that I wouldn't look confrontational".[ I have also noticed that during This RfA you avoid making your usual contrubution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict article in which up to this RfA you have invested a lot of time. On your talk page you were asked a question that should be answered here as well. So far you have avoided answering these questions, which mean that you had mastered the western (actually American) corrate way of "don't rock the boat" - there are many people in corporate america who were promoted very nicly by doing what you now seem to be doing. In any case let me remind you that in Wikipedia we try to do the opposite and "Be Bold" so please go ahead and answer questions 5, 6, & now 7. You can also go back to edit some israeli-palestinian issues. Zeq 20:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My private email is my own business. The only thing I have to hide is my premature bald spot (but I don't hide it actually). I have not stopped editing Pal-Isr conflict pages intentionally, and actually have been on such pages in the past few days. Your wiki-stalking of my posts to others' talk pages is disconcerting. Ramallite (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeq, please do not add anything else to the main page. You've posted there enough, more than anyone else, people have read what you have to say, and will come here if they want to read more. The page is becoming hard to edit, and so further comments and questions must be made here. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slim Please do not tell me what to do and where to post. I followed what everyone else is doing. In all recent RfAs the question are on the main page. You can not decide which questions are where. If you want start this whole RfA from scratch and state clearly where questions should be. Zeq 08:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You need to provide a source for that accusation. It is against "assume good faith". Alos as the source of these question I state that they are honest question. What source do you have to refute it. Zeq 22:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also by removing these qustion you prevet some editors from seeing them (they may not look here because on all RfA the questions are on main page as are some of the questions you have left there. As such by moving the questions out you are disruppting wikipedia to make a point. (violation) and tainting this whole voting procedure Zeq 22:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the questions should stay. Even if the questions had bad intentions behind them (and that's a big assumptio), this is the type of situation an admin will be found into, and others need to see how he responds and reacts to controversy. --Vizcarra 22:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've put a note under the questions for candidates header that there are more questions on the talk page. It says the same under comments. People who look in those sections will see it. People who don't look wouldn't have seen your extra questions anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was not all the compromise I proposed. an important part was to get these question answered. I am not willing to  delegitimize the questions by moving them from where question normaly are in such RfA. I expect the questions to be answered otherwise their move (which prevet some people from seeing that there are unansered questions) is taining this whole vote. Let's get some answers. Should not be so hard. Zeq 22:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions that have not been answered by candidate 

message: The nominator of this RfA, an editor name slimvirgin, has moved questions I has asked the candidate from the main page (where all other questions are) to the talk page. I have checked 6 recent RfAs and in all of them the questions are on the project page and the talk page does not exist. 
* Questions are always legitimate way of civilized dialogue. Threats, like now slim is making (see my talk page) are not a civilized way of communication. It is exactly such abuse of admin powers that is the concern in this specific RfA. Other issues such as not participating enouggh in wki name space, not making much contribution to other subjects have been rasied. The voters of this RfA desrve to read answers to all questions. Trying to remove questions is tainting this whole process Zeq 08:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, some questions are legitimate, but your input into this has reached the point of being disruptive. You're welcome to post as much as you want to the talk page, but not to the main page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  === Infulancing the outcome of the RfA === 

message: In this edit User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Zeq slim is soliciting another editor to revert becasue she had already revereted me 3 times ? This is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes it hard for user who are not part of her Clique to contribute to Wikipedia. Such behaviour should not be allowed. People who engage in it should not be adminstrators Zeq 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, there's nothing wrong with what SlimVirgin is doing. She's not violating the 3RR; instead, she's seeing if other people support her decision. It isn't being in a Clique - it's just looking for support. Please tone down the rhetoric and try to be less abrasive. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  She threaten to block me. What did I vioalted ? Zeq 20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins are allowed to block for disruption, using their discretion. However, as I'm the nominator in this case it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do it. Nevertheless, I ask you again to stop posting to the main page, in part because it's getting hard to edit it. You've made your points well, and they've been taken. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Clearly you have not read this lately:  and also you shoud carefully review the definition of "disruption" that apear on the same page. I do not accept your definition of "hard to edit the page". The place of questions is on the main project page. This is how it was done for many RfA. If you want different rules on RfAs in which you are the nominator start this process again (maybe you will have to do it anyhow because this nomination may fail) and at that time point to asking questions and comments on the talk page instead of the main project page. So far I am only following what others have done and the volume of my edit is not a reason to remove my comments to a different page. I wish you would invest this energy in asking the candidate to answer the questions he so far avoids answering. Zeq 
21:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Disruptions are defined in wkipedia as "Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits." I have done nothing of that sort. Your threat to use blocks was in clear violation of your admin powers. I would expect "Wikipedia custodians" like Quadell to know it. Zeq 21:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She didn't threaten to block you, zeq. She told another admin that she'd decided not to block you, due to the policy you cited above. Your edits on this page have been borderline-disrupting, and it's a good idea for admins to ask other admins whether they think it's a blockable offence or not. I think SlimVirgin should be commended in how well she handled the situation. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I am glad I pointed out the policy to both of you. In the future she should avoid making threats to act in way that would cause her to violate the policy. Zeq 21:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin has been involved in edit wars often, many times together with Jayjg (even using the same arguments, even if the arguments are erroneous). In fact, not even two months ago Jayjg was "reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission" and has also been advised to "use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts" (see Proposed decision#Jayjg). However, they keep getting involved in edit wars, so I would suggest that you are mindful of the 3RR rule and ask others to look into the articles so you don't fall into a 3RR-violation trap. Because, reverts by tag teams, are only counted by individual. --Vizcarra 22:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Violation of the 3RR rule by Slim ? == 

message: Whats the point of being Muslim/Arab/Po-Palestinian and standing for Admin anymore.  There is a clear and organised campaign by people opposed to Muslims, and Pro-Palestinians and it stinks. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also an anon IP asking people to oppose.  It resolves to Israel. There's nothing wrong with soliciting votes, but it should be done in good faith and for legitimate reasons, and preferably with a user name. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What are Sieeg votes? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tom posted a diff to a reference to this RfA at Sieeg, a Wikipedia project. By "Sieeg votes" I mean people who are members of that project and who voted in this RfA. Babajobu 21:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Klonimus who posted that diff; I don't think Tom would have done that. Quadell, SIEEG is Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, standing for the Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. To judge by some of the comments (e.g. "sunshine is the best disinfectant), it's not too friendly to Islam. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "sunshine is the best disinfectant" has nothing to do with Islam. I sugest you look up judge barndeis (not sure about the correct sppling of his name but he is famous enough, I am sure you will find it. Zeq 22:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For the record, I don't agree to this. I think well-balanced pro-Palestinian nominees can be promoted. Ramallite may well get promoted, and if not, I'll bet if he's renominated in 3 months he'll be approved. (A good fraction of the oppose votes are because of his edit count, not his beliefs.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is more of a fantasy on Tom's part than anything else, a kind of persecution erotica. The "clear and organized campaign" to undermine pro-Palestinian admin candidates has yielded two oppose votes and two neutral votes in Rammalite's RfA, out of a total of 80 total votes. Not much of a "campaign" at all, and nothing to feel to victimized by. Babajobu 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats the point

message: Instead of getting into an edit war on where the question should be I suggest that everyone involved will get Ramallite to answer these questions. 
As a second step everyone voting in ths RfA need to see these questions and his answers.
As long as these two things occur (and I don't care how but I want to be sure people get to see these answers) I don't care where the answers are posted. If and when he answer on the talk page there should be a note that all questions and answers moved there as long as formatting is kept and link do not get lost as they did in previous moves. we just need to do it for all qustions as a group and inform voters where to see the questions and answers (after such answers are provided) Zeq 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your English was clear enough, I understand exactly what you are saying, to keep the questions in the project page, and after they are answered then they can be moved to talk. I think SlimVirgin got confused a bit. --Vizcarra 22:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let me make a suggestion 

message: (for context) Support. Most of the oppose votes are there only because the editors don't agree with this user's personal viewpoints. - ulayiti (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  simply not true, just count them. Some expressed conceren that in some cases he will use his admin powers. Off course on most cases he kept cool but on some heated debate he pushed POV and made edits that caused this concern. (see question 5 on talk page) The fact that most editors had a good expiriance with his edits is because  only extreme situation bring to light the editing style that caused concern Zeq 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, trust me the Israeli West Bank barrier was not an "extreme situation". Keep in mind that I don't agree that I pushed any POV on that article, I was merely trying to fix a lot of language and context problems (which are still there because I took a break after your persistent reverting of text that you didn't even object to had you bothered to read carefully). In any case, you have pointed that article out on numerous occasions on this RfA page, and others have taken a look and have made up their own minds whether or not I tried to push a POV. It is on the Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier page for all to see. Don't worry about it. Ramallite (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ramallite, you are generally indeed a very good editor. The problem are those areas that affect you personaly. When it came to deal with "the effect of the barrier on palestinians" (something that affect you personally) that was the place that caused me concern. Your edit in these issues went into minute details that are well beyond an encyclopedia. or your insistence to add minute facts (such as acces to land above the tunnel in this edit   although you knew that the tunnel is under a road and thus can not be cultivated) You insisted on other minute details such as the lnegth of time owners of shacks were given time to evacuate them  and in the claim of a rewording reverted text that had previously been agreed upon . I know the subject of the barrier is hard for you as it affects your own life. Zeq 05:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting far too much like trolling, Zeq. I think if people read your edits, and mine, they can decide for themselves what to believe. You do not have to reproduce everything you complained about on one article's talk page here. We have been over this Israeli West Bank barrier article enough already, and remember that it is your (grammatically and structurally flawed) section that has been posted for the past month, not mine, because I decided to take a break from it for a few weeks. This discussion belongs on Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier, not here. And you are also acting in bad faith by asserting and reasserting nonsense about me. I have not been to Qalqilya in years, so I have no idea what is going on personally (and remember it was you who kept insisting that I call up my friends there and ask, not realizing that this is original research and against WP rules). I used official Palestinian, Israeli, and UN documents, most of which you provided as my sources, which is the way things are done on WP. You objected to one of the sources I chose even though it is very suitable by WP standards, and the only reason you gave is that you have been to the sites personally, which for WP is irrelevant (and also factually irrelevant, since what you saw at the sites did not really have much to do with the places that the sources were referring to). Then you kept reverting my edits blindly even though I had incorporated much (if not all) of what you wanted to include in the article, and the only reason you gave is that 'I don't support a two-state solution' (which is your own invention and also has absolutely nothing to do with this article) or 'I work for the NAD' (yeah, the NAD needs biologists in order to gather urine samples from foreign diplomats) or 'I am too close to the subject' (which is extremely humiliating and offensive to say, plus again, irrelevant) or some other excuse that has nothing to do with...anything! Zeq, you have no idea who I am and you don't know what areas affect me personally or what my life's story is. You are also acting in very bad faith and seem to be on a crusade to make sure this RfA fails; you have voted, explained multiple times why you voted the way you did, referred others again and again to Israeli West Bank barrier which is really the only article you worked with me on, argued with people who voted to support me, and you have gone and asked voters on their own talk pages to reconsider their votes even though they know my work much better than you ever will. You have also ignored my advice and the advice of others that what you are doing is making you look bad. My personal opinions (of which you know very little) and experiences (of which you know even less) have nothing to do with my edits, and I think people are capable of deciding for themselves without you constantly reminding them. Ramallite (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously, if it makes me look bad that does not concern me. I am not here to gain popularity. I wanted to contribute to better knowledge of complex subjects on which I have exposure too. It would really be nice to see you edit some biology values at the same amount that you edit Palestine related issues. I am surprized of anyone who does not contribute much from his own field of expertize. Zeq 15:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My suggestion that you call up your friends and check was that you will know the truth and that we will both know that you know the truth. It was not for Wikipedia. For Wikipedia I brought several sources about the city being open for over a year, yet by clinging to old maps you continued to revert me. Zeq 15:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments from the main page

message: (for context) #OpposeI don't trust the judgement of those who are pushing him for this position so soon.  We know about as much about him as we did about Harriet Miers.  How will he deal with admin abuse for instance?  Has he been around long enough to have experienced it?--Silverback 16:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, because it doesn't seem to be based on my actual record. On one hand, you are questioning the motives of my supporters, not the quality of my edits (or lack of, if you wish), and on another, your question suggests that you haven't actually read my contributions but are wondering about them. Don't you think you should at least ask (in the Questions for the Candidate section below) in order to have an informed decision, and if not, then stay neutral? The comparison to Miers is pretty strange too. I'm one of the few editors who actually states some sort of profile (researcher, etc) and POV on my talk page, almost everybody else is completely anonymous. Should the senate Democrats oppose Aleto because they merely don't trust the judgement of President Bush? Or because of his own record? In any case, thanks for taking the time to vote. Ramallite (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've only been around for 4 months, and it is too hard to get rid of admins who abuse.  El_C gives you glowing praise and he has supported people and philosophies that think abuse is OK in order to get them what what they want.--Silverback 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, hard to understand how my being around for 4 months is relevant or how being here longer would make any difference in the context of your specific arguments, since you already made up your mind without using my own edits and interactions as evidence (or so it appears to me).  It shouldn't matter what people who support my nomination do as much as it should matter what I myself do. You have chosen unusual reasons not to assume good faith. But oh well, thanks anyway. Ramallite (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ramallite, a number of voters on both sides have used "just look at who voted on the other side!" as grounds for their vote. It seems to be a feature of several recent RfAs. I'd say overall that sort of thinking has been a push in your RfA--ie, those votes have balanced each other out, it's neither hurt you nor benefited you. Babajobu 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Ramallite has been editing since June 2", hmm, I get that to be 5 months. Regards, Huldra 20:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more moved comments 

message: Slim,
To give to people like you the power to revert is causing great problems all over wikipedia.
here is one:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRamallite&diff=27557233&oldid=27557216
Revert is a good tool against Vandals not as editing tool. 
Please explain why you deleted a vote . see my editing summary before reverting again. Zeq 21:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave the page alone. You removed a vote and you changed the tally, I accept inadvertently, but there was no need for you to edit the page in the first place. You've made around 150 edits overall in connection with this vote. It's enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRamallite&diff=27557850&oldid=27557505 is a change of other user comment. Zeq 21:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not supposed to use headers to attack other editors. Please just forget about this nomination. It has driven you to behavior that has made you look very bad, and in fact you appear to have caused people to vote for the candidate, so it's a lose-lose situation for you however you look at it. This is my last response to you on the subject. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So my "behaviour" caused people to vote for admin for someone that other wise would not be voted for....great reason.
I suspect that there is fair amount of behind the scene comunication going on. Otherwise you would not be able to know what you just said. Zeq 21:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that was my second-last response to you. At least one person mentioned it in their reasoning, and others alluded to it, that's how I know. Zeq, go edit the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only one person said that, stiill you used the word "people" so you know somethinng we can not see.
BTW, are you hinting that these votes are not legitimate ? How about votes that got via this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramallite#Your_RFA and this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARamallite&diff=27197456&oldid=27177885 - clearly something is going on in this RfA that we can not see what it is Zeq 21:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: FYI, during Slim and Zeq's back-and-forth, Ramallite's comments to Silverback's vote were disappeared, as were my comments to Ramallite's comments. Babajobu 22:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq moved them, Baba, and I think he pasted them all above. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, you're right, sorry, they are all on this page. Babajobu 22:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit glitches 

message: I first stumbeled on this RfA when it was 21:11 and noticed this comment:
User_talk:Ramallite#Your_RFA .
Shortly after this comment was made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARamallite&diff=27197456&oldid=27177885 there started at apear votes from people who never even edited any of Ramallite articles. Including this kind of editing record which I find puzzeling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juntung
Also I noticed someone is coaching the candidate behind the scene, in his words "so that I wouldn't look confrontational" User_talk:Anonymous_editor#My_RfA.  It did not end there. As described above there are indications that slimvirgin knows the reason why people are voting (as she described it: "you appear to have caused people to vote for the candidate")
I know we should all assume good faith (although the candidate once wrote to me he doubts my good faith) but we should wonder if wikipedia needs to have a policy that would prevent voting influance caused by Wikiclique "Wiki-clique editors often engage in self promotion such as the nomination of allied editors for administrator positions at WP:RfA followed by voting en masse for a member to secure his or her nomination" .
Unless this wikicliquiing will be stopped wikipedia will have only one kind of admins who think the same and help each other in such acts as bypassing the 3RR rule and various votes. Zeq 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern about wikicliquing and behind-the-scenes maneuvering would be more credible if your own edit history didn't contain a solid block of campaigning from two days ago:       . For Juntang, I think you neglected to check their last 500 edits; indeed, the user in question has over 2000 edits on numerous subjects. Some users just make a point of voting in every RfA, even when otherwise on Wikibreak. --Aquillion 16:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing wrong in asking people to vote in an open way like I did. But there are clear indication that some admin have used e-mail and we do not know what infulance if any was in these e-mail that brought 50 more support votes. 
Zeq 07:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there something wrong going on here ? 

message: Let's get the mop closet open and give the man his mop. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the skinny?

message: So Wikipedia may not be a democracy and all that, but this'll be interesting.  Will the fact that 22 people voted 'oppose' to Ramalite's adminship be taken into consideration?  Even if the overall percentage approached 80% support, that's a lot of people opposed to it.  Proto t c 11:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  That wouldn't even be the record for adminship proceedings succeeding with high oppose votes--IIRC the record was over 30. And discarding low-edit-count votes and votes made after closing, both of which are generally not counted, I get 20 oppose votes. --Aquillion 17:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: 22 oppose votes 

message: In the interests of transparency, I believe it would be useful to point out:
:Regardless of whether the disputed votes are counted, Ramallite's nomination achieved over 75% support.
:There is little reason to suppose that a renomination in a week or a month's time would significantly change this level of support.
:Adminship should be "no big deal".
As such, I have made Ramallite an administrator.  If you have any further questions, please raise them here or on my talk page. Thanks, Warofdreams talk 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uf.  So much contention, and so much of it utter frivolity.  Adminship is not the "end of the line", regardless of what some people seem to think to the contrary.  If the judgment of so many of us has been in error, it will be shown to be such in due time, and what none of us imagine at this point as "our mistake" can be corrected.  I trust Ramallite to continue his work in the style he's so well established already, and I think I speak for the vast majority of us, including a number of the "oppose" votes, when I say so.  As a "support" voter, I obviously agree with your decision to promote Ramallite, and trust that his actions will speak well of those who have supported him, and not so well of those who have actively opposed him.  Like Lincoln said... You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time...  Fortunately, adminship doesn't require that you do so, but rather that you simply enforce WP policy when you see it violated, something I trust Ramallite to do fully.  Thanks for your decision, kudos to Ramallite, and hopefully we can all move on productively from here...  Tomer TALK 10:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramallite is now an administrator