Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) Tags: AWB Reverted |
Menei Tekel (talk | contribs) Restoring 2012 version by 28bytes. The reversal of courtesy blanking (both before and after) was not proper because the courtesy had already been granted in 2008. Tags: Replaced Manual revert Reverted |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{NOINDEX}} |
|||
<div class="boilerplate metadata rfa" style="background-color: #fff5f5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking|blanked as a courtesy]]. {{#ifeq:|yes|The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision is still in effect, and can be viewed in the [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:{{PAGENAME}}|action=history}} page history].}}{{#if:| The contents of the page can be viewed in this [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|oldid=}} prior revision].|}} |
|||
:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[wikipedia:requests for adminship|request for adminship]] that '''did not succeed'''. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</strong>[[Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] |
|||
<span class="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel|action=edit§ion=4}} Voice your opinion]'''</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel|talk page]]) |
|||
'''(14/32/2); Withdrawn by candidate. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{User|Shalom Yechiel}} - This, I feel confident in saying, will be a doozy. For those of you unfamiliar with Shalom, he's been a registered user here since November 2005, and started contributing in earnest in January 2007. During that time, he has frequently fallen well short of being a model contributor. |
|||
* '''The good''' - I'd say the best thing about Shalom is his commitment to easing the always extensive backlog at [[WP:SSP]]. He does remarkable work there, and lots of it, and this work can only be enhanced with the receipt of the tools. In fact, much as I hate the opposes in RFAs that cite a candidate's lack of ''need'' for the tools, I'd like to acknowledge them by pointing out that, if any editor does need them, it's Shalom, by reason of his [[WP:SSP]] activities. He has also engaged in substantial article building over too many articles to mention (more than ten thousand mainspace edits). Finally, his advocacy on behalf of the incorrectly (though in good faith) blocked [[User:CreepyCrawly]] demonstrates a spirit of [[WP:Eguor admins|Eguor]] that I frankly think we could use more of around here. |
|||
* '''The bad''' - I don't think Shalom has violated every one of our policies and guidelines, but he's done so to a fair number of them. Early in his career, he attempted to set up a [[Googlebomb]] to defame [[Richard Joel]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Joel&diff=prev&oldid=31372022],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews_in_apostasy&diff=prev&oldid=31384122],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rudolph_Garfield&diff=prev&oldid=31372142],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apostasy&diff=prev&oldid=31372519] - I'm told that "kofeir" is Hebrew for "heretic"). I don't have a lot of patience for deliberate [[WP:BLP]] violators, and if I'd been around at the time and aware of his activities, I may well have indef-blocked him. But he wasn't indef-blocked, and during his second RFA, he offered the following explanation of his Googlebomb: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYechielMan_2&diff=135004196&oldid=134999068] (look at the answer to question 6). I accept his rationale: he did it out of a malicious sense of humour, but is now able to explain very clearly why it was wrong. Then there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miserable_failure&diff=108370701&oldid=105841279 this edit], which I think was made out of the same motivation, and which he also later renounced. After that edit, he stopped vandalizing with this account, but continued to do so using I.P.s (no diffs, because I frankly don't know where to find them). Moreover, during his first two RFAs, he was deliberately evasive and ridiculously literalist, denying having engaged in any recent vandalism on the basis that his ''account'' hadn't done so. In brief, his explanation for that vandalism was mental illness; he explains himself more thoroughly [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASarcasticidealist&diff=1030150&oldid=1030036 here], where he also renounces his evasive answers to questions about vandalism. Around the same time, he created new accounts with usernames designed to impersonate established editors ("SlimVirgil", for example). This is outlined in a page that I would consider mandatory reading for anybody participating in this RfA, [[User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Revelations]]. I have read a ''lot'' of this user's words - onwiki and on his blog - and reviewed a lot of his actions, and I am convinced that the profile that emerges is one of an excellent user with a history of mental problems, the integrity to face up to his past misdeeds, and the courage to apply for adminship in the face of this past (as he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shalom&diff=next&oldid=172797418 noted] elsewhere, "I kept my account (though I did change my username via the standard process) after the scandal broke. If I wanted to become an admin by any means possible, the simplest way would have been to "retire" and start over with a clean record. I felt it was better to keep my account linked to my personal identity, and to prove through actions, rather than through technical tricks, that I have broken from the past.") Please support him. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
;Co-nomination from Giggy |
|||
I nominated this user last time around at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom]], and I stand by what I said there, for starters. When I came to this RfA, I had previously offered to nominate, but at the same time had openly stated that my hopes of success weren't sky high. They still aren't. When I saw the list of alternate accounts below, and looked through some of their contribs, my only response was "O.o I'm ''nominating'' this guy!?!?!?" And yet, I am. Yechiel's honesty and commitment to this project is a shining beacon we could all follow. The ridiculous and inexcusable behaviour of his past has not been repeated. He has learned from his mistakes. I for one believe he will be one of the best administrators we ever see. I only hope the community shares my view. Good luck Yechiel. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:'' I accept. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) <small>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Shalom Yechiel|Editor review]]</small> 05:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<div align="center"><big>'''Opening statement'''</big></div> |
|||
In order to spare readers the effort of sorting through pages of archives, I'll list all of the user accounts and IP addresses I've edited with here, noting when these accounts were active, and marking those that were blocked. Most of these are already listed at [[User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Revelations#Summary]]. This should satisfy any reasonable desire for a full disclosure. |
|||
;User accounts |
|||
*{{userlinks|Shalom Yechiel}} |
|||
**I began as YechielMan until June 2007, and changed to Shalom for the reason Sarcasticidealist copies above. |
|||
**I changed to Shalom Yechiel in June 2008 in order to create a global SUL account. |
|||
*{{userlinks|Placeholder account}} - May 2007 |
|||
*{{Userlinks|SlimVirgil}} - February 2007, indef-blocked. |
|||
* {{Userlinks|Buuuurrrrrrrr}} - May 2007, indef-blocked |
|||
* {{Userlinks|Oommpapa}} - May 2007, indef-blocked |
|||
* {{Userlinks|MER-SEE}} - May 2007, indef-blocked |
|||
* {{Userlinks|Minorly}} - May 2007, indef-blocked |
|||
* {{Userlinks|Dodo Gogo}} - May 2007, indef-blocked |
|||
* {{Userlinks|Molag's Ball}} - June 2007, indef-blocked |
|||
* {{Userlinks|Kivel}} - March and April 2008. Admins may view deleted contributions. |
|||
;IP addresses |
|||
* 129.98.x.y - Computers at the Wilf Campus of [[Yeshiva University]]. Edits to [[Endgame tablebase]] are all mine, and the vandalism edits listed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shalom/Other_stuff&oldid=127014250 here] are also mine. However, these are shared computers, and some edits in the contribution logs are not mine. |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.214.111}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.212.164}} - blocked in May 2007 for 3 hours |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.212.53}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.214.106}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.212.72}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|User:129.98.197.253}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.212.58}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.212.155}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.212.51}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|129.98.212.64}} |
|||
*IP addresses at my apartment in [[Washington Heights]] where I lived from November 2006 through June 2007 |
|||
**{{Userlinks|69.201.182.76}} - blocked twice on Russian Wikipedia for vandalism in April 2007. [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:Log&type=block&page=%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:69.201.182.76] |
|||
**{{Userlinks|66.65.54.63}} |
|||
*IP addresses at my home in [[Newton, Massachusetts]] where I have lived since July 2007 |
|||
**{{Userlinks|71.174.234.120}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|71.174.226.117}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|71.174.111.147}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|71.174.224.76}} - Also contributed on Hebrew Wikipedia. |
|||
**{{Userlinks|71.174.111.205}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|71.174.111.245}} |
|||
**{{Userlinks|71.174.228.123}} |
|||
;Statement of principles |
|||
If you haven't clicked the edit button opposite the word "oppose" yet...why should you support my RFA? I can give several reasons. |
|||
The [[Talmud]] in the third chapter of [[Sanhedrin (Talmud)|Sanhedrin]] delineates the rules governing who may provide written or oral [[testimony in Jewish law]]. (I just created this article based on my comments here and on a Hebrew Wikipedia article.) For procedural reasons that need not concern us here, a valid witness in a Jewish [[Beit Din]] must be an adult (see [[Bar Mitzvah]]) man, not a woman nor a slave, and not be related by family connections to any of the other witnesses or judges. In addition, the witness must be an honest person who can be trusted not to lie. |
|||
The [[Mishnah]] (Sanhedrin 24b) states: "The following people are disqualified: a gambler with dice, a lender who collects [[interest (finance)|interest]], a chaser of doves, and a merchant who profits from produce of [[Shemittah]]." The Talmud explains that each of these four activities falls within an expanded definition of theft because people who violate [[Torah]] laws or social norms in pursuit of money cannot be trusted to tell the truth. However, anyone who has engaged in these forbidden activities may be reinstated upon undertaking a complete reversal to demonstrate especially honest conduct by renouncing a permitted activity. |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
*Gamblers with dice...when are they reinstated? When they destroy their dice and completely reverse themselves, so that they do not play even for free. |
|||
*Lenders who collect interest...when are they reinstated? When they tear up their [[promissory note]]s and completely reverse themselves, so that they do not collect interest even from a non-Jewish borrower. |
|||
*Chasers of doves...when are they reinstated? When they destroy their tools for chasing and completely reverse themselves, so that they do not chase doves even in the desert. |
|||
*Merchants who profit from produce of Shemittah...when are they reinstated? When the next Shemittah year arrives [seven years later] and they withdraw. |
|||
**[[Rabbi Nehemiah]] said: They required not only a reversal of words, but also a reversal of money. How so? A person proclaims, "I, [[Placeholder|John Doe]], profited 200 [[Zuz (coin)|Zuz]] from selling fruits of Shemittah, and I am now giving this money to charity." (Sanhedrin 25b. See also [[Maimonides]], [[Mishneh Torah]], Laws of Testimony 13:5-9.) |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
If I may compare testimony in Jewish law to adminship on Wikipedia, although they are obviously different in many ways: first, Jimbo Wales has stated that [[WP:NBD|adminship is no big deal]]. Regardless of what that means, or whether it still holds true, testimony in Judaism definitely is a big deal. A witness can, by the force of his testimony, establish that one person owes money to a second person, and empower the court to compel the first person to pay. Despite the dire consequences of false testimony, Jewish law explicitly allows a previously dishonest person to testify with full force after the witness has undergone a reformative process. ''[[A fortiori]]'', the Wikipedia community should allow a previously dishonest user to acquire the tools of trust after that user has reformed. |
|||
I have reversed myself completely from the vandalism and sockpuppetry of my past. Not only do I not vandalize or operate any alternate accounts: I prosecute users who violate these policies. I have reverted more than 1,000 vandalism edits (probably many more; I lost count long ago) and have used the [[WP:ROLL|rollback]] tool without incident. I have reported a number of vandals to [[WP:AIV]], and I presume that most of them actually were blocked. I have left talk page warnings on user talk pages of accounts who generate vandalism. This is all standard operating procedure, but having repeated it hundreds of times across more than a year of clean activity, I have reinforced the principle that I will not tolerate vandalism anywhere on this vast project. |
|||
In the past I vandalized from logged-out IP addresses. Since then I have reverted vandalism from IP addresses. See these edits to [[Gunnar Jarring]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunnar_Jarring&diff=prev&oldid=192933047] (explained [[User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/The vandals are winning!|here]]), [[Central Asia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=204700437], [[Documentary film]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Documentary_film&diff=prev&oldid=209507337] and [[Hajj]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj&diff=prev&oldid=203306356]. |
|||
In the past I vandalized on other Wikimedia projects. Since then I have reverted vandalism on other Wikimedia projects. See these edits on Simple English Wikipedia [http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electron_cloud&diff=prev&oldid=739238], Dutch (Nederlands) Wikipedia [http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turijn_%28stad%29&diff=prev&oldid=12764489], and English Wikiquote [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein&diff=prev&oldid=715380]. |
|||
In the past I edited from IP addresses and alternate accounts. In the last two months, after I returned from a six-week leave of absence, I cannot recall editing while not logged in to this user account (Shalom or Shalom Yechiel). With the advent of single-user login, I have no reason to edit anywhere on Wikimedia without logging in. I won't promise not to fix a spelling mistake if I happen to be logged out, but for major edits you have my solemn commitment that I will always login to this account, unless for whatever reason I will need to exercise a right-to-vanish in the future (not likely). Furthermore, I have reviewed dozens of cases at [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets]], an administrative area in dire need of attention (see below). I prosecute users who violate the sock puppet policy. I will not exercise the [[WP:SOCK#LEGIT|loopholes in policy]] that allow me to edit from a second account for convenience or privacy. Simply, I hold myself to a higher standard of conduct than I expect of others. |
|||
If you do not believe that I have reformed, then why should you believe that I vandalized in the first place? The only thing Kathryn NicDhana discovered after my second RFA was that I had edited and vandalized English Wikipedia as 69.201.182.76. I wrote all the other revelations, including my use of other sockpuppets and IP addresses, from a completely voluntary motive, without any external pressure. |
|||
If you do not believe that a reformed vandal should be given administrator tools, let me ask you: why not? Is this some kind of punishment? From my experience and understanding of policy, we don't "punish" users. We do what's best for the encyclopedia and the community. If you believe that making me an administrator will harm the encylopedia and the community, by all means, oppose this request and explain how I can improve my behavior. However, please do not oppose simply for past misconduct if you do not honestly expect me to repeat that misconduct. |
|||
Still, if you are worried that I will vandalize with administrator tools, consider this: I have invested probably more than a thousand hours of my free time over the last two-and-a-half years to building this encylopedia into the massive collection of information it has become. Assuming I spend an average of 2.5 minutes per edit (it is probably a little more than that, actually) and multiplying that by 25,000 edits (again, the actual number is larger and fails to account for deleted edits and edits to other wikis), it comes out that I have spent about 62,500 minutes, which is more than 1,000 hours (60,000 minutes). I don't know whether this investment of time was a wise decision given other things I might have done instead (see [[User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Time management]]), but I have made that investment in good faith, and I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it shows a greater commitment to the project than all but a small number of the voters here. So if you wonder whether I am truly committed to helping the project, let me turn the question on its head: how committed are ''you'' to helping the project? And what more can you do that you are not already doing? Think about that for a moment. |
|||
If that's still not enough, I am [[User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Accountability|open to recall]] if this request passes. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) <small>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Shalom Yechiel|Editor review]]</small> 19:15, 4 July 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in? |
|||
::'''A:''' I am able to take part in any and all administrative duties, but I will focus most of my efforts on [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets]], where I already review cases frequently. It would save me hours over the long term if I could block users myself instead of waiting for someone else to do it for me. I try to make sure that every case receives a timely response, and without having blocking tools, even if I respond quickly I may be unable to resolve the matter until someone else comes to finish the job a week later. You can check the [[WP:SSP]] archives for May and June to see how I have responded to some recent reports. I will eventually use the protection and deletion tools also, but I will start slow on these and make sure I know what I'm doing. I have a lot of experience in the deletion process, but most of that was in 2007, and I want to make sure I'm caught up to speed before I delete too many pages or close controversial AFDs. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) <small>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Shalom Yechiel|Editor review]]</small> 20:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''2.''' What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? |
|||
::'''A:''' In the last sentence of [[Pirkei Avot]], "Ben Hei Hei says, 'The reward is commensurate with the effort.'" He referred to Torah study, but it's equally true for a volunteer project such as this. I won't list all the articles I've invested more than an hour of my time in writing or translating, so I will direct you to the list at my recent editor review (click "editor review" in my signature) and the subpages [[User:Shalom/Content contributions]] and [[User:Shalom/Barnstars and awards]]. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) <small>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Shalom Yechiel|Editor review]]</small> 20:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''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:''' Yes, I have had some minor conflicts over editing, and other users caused me stress in a number of incidents which I prefer not to list here. I try to keep a cool head and discuss the problem calmly, and if that doesn't solve the problem, I stop editing for a while and do something else. This approach has worked for me in the past, so I will continue to do what works well. (I give a longer answer at the editor review, linked in my signature.) [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) <small>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Shalom Yechiel|Editor review]]</small> 20:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
;Required questions from [[User:Metagraph|Metagraph]]: |
|||
:'''4.''' What's to stop you from vandalising from an additional IP address? You've done it before, while claiming you'd stopped. Why should we believe that you've either disclosed all your IP addresses/sockpuppet accounts? |
|||
:::'''A:''' I'm tempted not to answer the questions because this RFA is doomed to fail, and I don't believe in creating Wikidrama for Wikidrama's sake. Still, against my better judgment, I'll give straight answers to some difficult questions. First, I advise you to review [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom]], where Yahel Guhan and Kathryn NicDhana asked similar questions in slightly different wording. To your first question: ''What's to stop me from vandalizing from an additional IP address?'' Technically, there is no way to stop ''anyone'' from doing that. I know this is not the answer you want to hear, but there is nothing in the wiki software to stop you, or Alison, or Jehochman, or FloNight, or Rlevse, or Thatcher, or Jpgordon, or ''anyone'' from logging out and vandalizing using an IP address or a single-use sockpuppet. I intentionally listed the editors for whom I have the maximum respect: I ''trust'' that they won't do anything stupid, and will always act with the best interests of Wikipedia as their primary goal. RFA is about trust: either you trust me, or you don't. If you don't trust me not to vandalize, there's really nothing I can do to regain that trust more than I have already done. |
|||
:::To your second point: "You've done it before, while claiming you'd stopped." That's partially true. I wrote in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YechielMan 2]] that (I'm paraphrasing here) "Of the last 4,000 edits in [[Special:Contributions/YechielMan]] you might find one or two that might be considered vandalism." I purposely did not say anything about other contribution logs that I had caused. I've apologized on multiple occasions for vandalizing and misleading the community, and if it's not clear, I apologize again. But once I promised to stop vandalizing using alternate accounts, as I promised at [[User talk:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/RFA Review#YechielMan responds]], I kept that promise. I made that promise once, and I kept it. So no, I never did vandalize using alternate accounts after I said I stopped vandalizing using alternate accounts. What I said in that second RFA was that I stopped vandalizing using my main account while I was vandalizing using alternate accounts. It's a small difference, and has no impact on the substantive issues here, but I wanted to set the record straight. |
|||
:::To your third point: "Why should we believe that you've either disclosed all your IP addresses/sockpuppet accounts?" As I said above, I made this disclosure voluntarily, so I know better than anyone else which accounts I used. If I were trying to minimize the number of accounts associated with my name, I would have let the sockpuppet tagging on [[User:Molag's Ball]] stand. I created that account, made an edit with it, and got indef-blocked with it. As I describe at [[User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Sockpuppet tagging is counterproductive]], Acalamari mistakenly tagged it as a sockpuppet of banned [[User:Molag Bal]] about 40 days later. Then the real Molag Bal edited that userpage and undid the sockpuppet template, saying it wasn't him, and this revert war went on for a few more cycles. Then I asked WJBscribe in private correspondence in November, after my last RFA, to delete the userpages associated with my accounts, including that one, and he did. Then Moe Epsilon ''again'' restored the sockpuppet template even though the page had been deleted, and I found out about this a few months later while preparing the "Revelations" essay when I looked through WJBscribe's deletion log and found the userpage blue-linked, and wondered why. It took some detective work to puzzle out what had happened. Suffice it to say, if I wanted to minimize the number of sockpuppets associated with my name, I could easily have passed off that user account as Molag Bal from now until eternity, and nobody would know any better. (For what it's worth, [[User talk:Mologg Bawl]] is not Molag Bal, but it's not me either.) I did the best job I could reasonably be expected to do to track down as many user accounts and IP addresses as possible. I have an exceptionally good memory, as those who know me in real life can attest, so I was able to find the logged-in usernames without much effort. It was much more difficult to find the IP addresses because in most cases, I had to figure out which IP addresses I had used from the pages I had edited while I was not logged in. I don't think many other users can remember pages they edited while not logged in more than a year ago. I did the best job I could with the tools I had available, but it is inevitable that I will have missed a few IP addresses. However, I have accurately represented all the locations from which I have edited: namely, the Yeshiva University library, my apartment in Washington Heights, and my home in Newton. I made a few edits from the Newton Library in July 2007, but I may have been logged in at the time, and anyway I would not be able to trace that IP address in my contributions. So the best answer I can give to "are there any other IP addresses I haven't disclosed yet?" is "yes, there are a couple, but there's not a whole lot of new information there." [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 01:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''5.''' I see you've previously stated that you edit for hours on end, and then can "no longer stand Wikipedia". I'd like you to answer two questions here. |
|||
:'''5a''' What, in your eyes, is the most damaging thing you could do to the project with your admin tools? |
|||
:::'''A:''' That's a difficult question to answer. I'll outline in general terms that there's a broad misconception out there that the worst possible thing a rogue administrator can do is to delete and block users or deface the Main Page in a wild spree. Robdurbar went rogue in April 2007 and was desysopped in about 17 minutes. The drama lasted one evening, and then he was forgotten. The password hacker who hijacked four admin accounts in May 2007 met a similar fate. In the end, no matter how many times he deleted the article about elections in Quebec, an admin undeleted it in a few minutes, and no permanent damage was done. |
|||
:::In contrast, the most permanent damage to the project must be of an irreversible nature. Blocking Jimbo Wales is reversible; an admin unblocks, a steward desysops, and life moves on. In contrast, blocking Giano is not reversible: Giano gets annoyed, Giano's friends unblock him, Giano's friends' enemies re-block Giano, and we have an arbitration case with massive Wikidrama. (I am massively oversimplifying, and I am not expressing an opinion about the current Giano arbitration case.) Blocking Piperdown was not really reversible: yes, he was unblocked after five months and one impressively unproductive ANI discussion short-circuited by Mantanmoreland and Samiharris sockpuppeting and distracting a whole bunch of admins from the fact that Piperdown was not actually WordBomb and had a substantial contribution history of his own. I think the fallout from that shameful incident is still not beyond us. I'm still waiting for an explanation from the admin who blocked Piperdown, and I believe (as I submitted to ArbCom) that a substantial aspect of the dispute between Cla68 on one side versus SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk on the other side relates to the mishandling of Piperdown's case. Now I am not suggesting that David Gerard did anything intentionally bad; until he tells us more than three words about his rationale, I have no way of knowing. But I am not going out on a limb to say that, in the long term, David Gerard's block of Piperdown did more harm to the project than Robdurbar's block of Jimbo Wales. So to answer your question, the most damage I could do as an admin is to block a long-time established editor with a somewhat problematic history but not quite deserving of a block by an objective standard - in other words, someone like myself. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''5b.''' What would stop you from simply 'having enough' of Wikipedia again? Being an admin is extremely tiring and stressful. Do you believe that, under all this stress, there would be no chance you'd 'have enough' and vandalise on any account, IP address, anywhere? You've also stated that you've vandalised other language Wiki's. Would you consider it better to vandalise the English Wikipedia, or another language Wikipedia? |
|||
:::'''A:''' You don't think I "had enough" of Wikipedia when I quit over the CreepyCrawly affair? You can check my blog post on March 20, 2008 - it and the subsequent posts seem to be generating a lot of interest from respondents on this page. I can't rule out the possibility that an administrative decision adverse to my own assessment would cause me such frustration as to propel me into a long Wikibreak, but that's all I would do: I'd walk away, maybe complain about the situtation on my blog or on Wikipedia Review, and after I cool off and read a dead-tree book, I'll come back and write another few articles about [[moshav]]im in Israel. I have better ways of releasing my frustration than to vandalize. |
|||
:::"Would you consider it better to vandalize the English Wikipedia, or another language Wikipedia?" If ever there was a loaded question, you've nailed it. My friend, it depends what your vandalism is intended to accomplish. I'm being totally serious here: how do you define "better" in the context of a nefarious activity? Better in that it achieves the nefarious goal, or conversely that it should fail at that goal? If you're trying to release frustration at the world, but you don't want to leave any permanent damage (which was in some cases my state of mind in April-May 2007) the best thing to do is vandalize English Wikipedia because people are watching and will revert within minutes. There are some pages that are unwatched, and there are tricks you can use to vandalize in ways that nobody will notice: for example, disambiguation pages are especially easy to saddle with nonsense because nobody is watching those pages very closely to remove all the redlinks and other silliness that creeps in. Still, overall, your best bet to get reverted quickly is on the English Wikipedia. There are teenagers armed with Huggle and Twinkle, not to mention the antivandalbots, working around the clock to catch every little shred of vandalism that flies into recent-changes, and despite their occasional failures, they are remarkably successful most of the time. (Of course, they revert good edits too every now and again.) My own method on recent-changes patrol is to read the logs, looking for anonymous edits to any page where I know what the title means, or where I am curious to learn about a new topic. Those are more likely to be vandalism than logged-in edits or anonymous edits to obscure pages. Even if a page is not on anybody's watchlist, I'll catch the edit on recent-changes patrol because that's how I do things. I'm speaking in general terms here; I haven't actually done recent-changes patrol in a while. |
|||
:::In contrast, if your purpose is to make vandalism stick, to show off to your friends how your vandalism on Wikipedia is still there after many months, your best bet is to try one of the smaller wikis with a low readership. If your edit slips past the recent-changes patrol and the antivandalbot on that wiki (if there is one), the next line of defense is the ordinary reader, and if there's nobody actually reading the article, the vandalism stays for a long, long time. That's what happened when I changed the flag of Ghana image to the flag of Mali on five different language wikis back in May 2007: English and two other wikis fixed it within 24 hours, but on two other wikis it lasted more than two months. For details, please see [[User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/The vandals are winning!]]. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''6.''' Aren't you right now avoiding an indef-block? You've used (if we choose to trust you) 8 accounts abusively, which were all indef-blocked. Why are you currently not blocked for being a sockpuppet and evading a block? '''One editor, one account.''' |
|||
:::'''A:''' I've always thought the question "What is the difference between a block and a ban?" was unnecessary on RFAs, but this would be a good time to review that distinction. SlimVirgil - I'm citing that account because it's chronologically the first of my troll accounts - was blocked on February 27, 2007. YechielMan, my main account name at that time, was autoblocked briefly but the autoblock expired. (That's how I learned what autoblock was.) Since YechielMan was not blocked, I continued editing as soon as the autoblock expired. I really didn't know that I was doing anything bad by continuing to make good-faith edits using my main account, aside from the fact that what I did with SlimVirgil was wrong and unacceptable by policy and basic moral decency. I guess it's time to start reverting all my edits after February 27, 2007 because they were made by a banned user?? You see, the community bans ''people'', not ''accounts''. The block on SlimVirgil did not presuppose a ban on other accounts operated by that person if the identity of those accounts was not known. You could argue that obviously a block on a troll account should have repercussions on the good-hand account, and I won't disagree with you, but the checkusers won't accept requests to look after such cases, so the matter dropped. Even though all of my troll accounts were indef-blocked, I as a person - Yechiel Robinson - was not banned from Wikipedia, and the community never seriously considered taking that step to the best of my knowledge (at least not before the last 12 hours). So I was not evading a ban because there was never a ban in place. I hope that answers your question. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''7.''' I'm not too happy about this statement you make here "'''If you do not believe that a reformed vandal should be given administrator tools, let me ask you: why not? Is this some kind of punishment?'''" I'd like you to answer this yourself. Why should someone who has vandalised many, many times, been indef. blocked no less than 8 times, and shows considerable biased towards subjects that are close to him be given admin tools? |
|||
:::'''A:''' I guess this really comes to the crux of what adminship is all about. I think you see granting of adminship in terms of reward and punishment: good users are rewarded with administrator access, and bad users are punished by being denied that access. Of course, once a user attains that access, adminship is no big deal insofar as blocking vandals and deleting non-notable music articles is just busy work, but the process of who becomes the vandal-blocker or the A7-deleter is a meritocracy based on the behavior of the user up to that point. I don't really see it that way. I think admins are needed to help the project in various areas; my particular area of recent administrative interest - already for a year now, but especially since May 2008 - is sorting through the backlog on [[WP:SSP]]. Some cases will wait more than a week, or even two weeks, without receiving the attention they need, and since I have gotten involved, I have substantially improved the response time and kept the case load reasonable. I feel I have the experience in my particular area of expertise to do a good job as an administrator in that area: for that role, I especially need blocking and unblocking, protecting and unprotecting, and the ability to view deleted edits. I think it's in the best interests of the project that a user who has more expertise in handling sockpuppet cases be given the tools to handle those cases. I'm not saying I deserve the tools based on my behavior in the first half of 2007, but I can use the tools to help Wikipedia, and I will not withhold my offer to help out of spite for past disappointments. (See further development of this idea on the talk page of this RFA.) So if you say I don't ''deserve'' admin tools, from a reward-and-punishment point of view I don't dispute that, but when I consider what's in the best interests of Wikipedia going forward, I think the community is better off with me as an admin than as currently. |
|||
:::You say I "show considerable bias towards subjects that are close to me" (paraphrased). I don't think any evidence of this has been presented as of when you wrote that statement. I don't think I've intentionally subverted NPOV in 2007 or 2008 (no comment on what I did in 2005 and '06, when I was much newer and didn't really understand NPOV). If you look through my translations of articles about Israel, you'll see that I refer to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as the [[Israeli War of Independence]] rather than the [[Nakba]], but that's because I'm writing about Israeli communities, and I'm translating those articles directly from Hebrew Wikipedia where the authors use the familiar Hebrew term ''milhemet ha'atzma'ut'', which means "War of Independence." In that context, I think linking to [[Israeli War of Independence]] rather than [[1948 Arab-Israeli War]] is justified and falls within a correct interpretation of NPOV. If I am mistaken on this point, please leave me a note on my talk page. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<s>:'''8.''' Given your admin tools, and your time dealing with socks, would you block yourself if you were a third party? |
|||
:::'''A:'''</s> - Useless question -- [[User:Metagraph|<font face="arial" color="#3300CC">Me</font><font color="#3333CC">ta</font><font color="#3333CC">gr</font><font color="#3366FF">aph</font>]] <small> [[User_Talk:Metagraph|'''comment''']]</small> 09:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''9.''' Why are some of your former accounts named to impersonate admins? Dodo Gogo and SlimVirgil seem very, very familiar. |
|||
:::'''A:''' Despite my good memory, it's very difficult for me to go back in time more than a year and remember what I was thinking. If you look at the contribs of Dodo Gogo, I reverted a few pages randomly until Eagle101 (now Nixeagle) busted me for the username violation. I think my plan was to make people think I was really Dodo Gogo the admin so that they wouldn't question why I was reverting their good-faith edits. I'm sorry about what I did, but that explains the edits in the contribution log; I don't think I had much interaction with Dodo Gogo, and I meant him no ill will. In contrast, SlimVirgil was an old-fashioned troll account. I posted a silly message on SlimVirgin's talk page. (If ElinorD hasn't undeleted it yet, admins can still see it in the deleted contributions.) The sole purpose of that account was to annoy SlimVirgin. For the life of me I can't remember why I wanted to annoy SlimVirgin of all people. Somehow it's become fashionable on Wikipedia Review to bash SlimVirgin, but this was more than a year before I started posting there, and I don't think I was aware of WR's existence back in February 2007. So I don't know why I chose her of all people to annoy. The same goes for Majorly and Badlydrawnjeff; I think I was just trying to annoy them, but I can't remember why I picked on them specifically, especially because I never had a dispute with either of them. MER-SEE was the same basic idea as Dodo Gogo: I tried to make people believe that I actually was [[User:MER-C]] on AFDs. It kinda worked: I got blocked, but the votes by MER-SEE on AFDs were not removed and I presume are still visible in the AFD verdicts. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
;Optional questions from [[User:Filll]] |
|||
:'''10.''' What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the [[User:Filll/Peaceful Polling Pledge|Peaceful Polling Pledge]]? |
|||
::'''A.''' I agree that there's a problem, but I'm not sure what the solution is. I saw you ask this question on a previous RFA, and my impression was that it wasn't entirely fair for you to involve an RFA candidate in RFA politics. After all, the poor guy or girl signed up for a mop and bucket, not a petition to reform community discourse. For now I'll hold off on signing the Peaceful Polling Pledge. I don't disagree with anything in it, so I won't rule out the possibility I might sign in the future, but I worry about the unintended consequences that pointing out problems of incivility might actually incite people to shoot the messenger instead of actually fixing the problem. So until I'm satisfied that this petition is actually going somewhere, I'll stay on the sideline, but I'll lend moral support to the idea. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''11.''' Answer two of the exercises at the [[User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_2_Directions|AGF Challenge 2]] and post the answers here or a link to your answers. |
|||
::'''A.''' If it's okay with you, Filll, I'll take this question after the RFA closes. Please leave me a reminder on my talk page. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- ;Additional questions from [[User:Example|Example]]: --> |
|||
====General comments==== |
|||
<!-- begin editcount box--> |
|||
*See [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom Yechiel]]'s edit summary usage with [http://www.toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Shalom_Yechiel&lang=en mathbot's tool]. For the edit count, see the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel|talk page]]. |
|||
<!-- end edit count box --> |
|||
{{#ifeq:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom Yechiel||<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">RfAs for this user:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YechielMan}}</ul></div>}} |
|||
* Links for Shalom Yechiel: {{usercheck-short|Shalom Yechiel}} |
|||
* |
|||
---- |
|||
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. --> |
|||
''Please keep discussion constructive and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review [[Special:Contributions/Shalom Yechiel]] before commenting.'' |
|||
====Discussion==== |
|||
* I am making a few other statements on the talk page of this RFA. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) <small>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Shalom Yechiel|Editor review]]</small> 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Could somebody elaborate on what they see as the problems with Shalom's blog posts? [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 19:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**Since I assume that was aimed at me, the post that raises the most concern was <font color=#0B610B>"Imagine if SlimVirgin and Raul654 were placed in such a dilemma: either admit for once in their lives that they defamed an innocent user, or else forfeit their right to exert power over other users! Surely they would find it difficult to apologize, and might refuse out of foolhardy arrogance to do so. Then they would come crying to the community at Requests for adminship, begging to be reinstated for their years of dedicated work to create and improve Featured Articles. Suddenly, faced with a choice whether to have these tyrants as administrators or not, the floodgates of pent-up anger would swamp these requests in a massive display of negativity. SlimVirgin's RFA would fail even more spectacularly than Kelly Martin's most recent RFA failed last autumn. Raul654 would receive more support than opposition, but would not reach the 75% promotion threshold, and not being a bureaucrat anymore, he could not promote himself. Other admins might also choose to stand for reconfirmation and find out what the community of editors really thinks about their administrative abuses.</font> In my opinion that's well over the line that separates "fair comment" from "personal attack on named editors". In his most recent post, he calls Wikipedia "a pseudo religious cult", incidentally.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*I am going to offer [[shalom]] in all its contexts (that I am acquainted with), and I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on the part of the candidate and all those expressing opinions in this discussion, by noting that this project will still be here six months, 12 months from now...and beyond. As adminship is not a prize, lack of it is not punitive. Valuable contributions can still be made, and serious reconsideration can occur at some future date. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] {{!}} [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Shalom, my man, I thought you said you wouldn't run for RFA for another five years after the last one failed... [[User:Hbdragon88|hbdragon88]] ([[User talk:Hbdragon88|talk]]) 02:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*He's got a statement about that on the Talk page. [[User:Townlake|Townlake]] ([[User talk:Townlake|talk]]) 03:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=====Support===== |
|||
#Support, per wise, eloquent, and even seductive words offered by nominator. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#... yes, by ''this'' nominator. ;-) —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 13:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#<small>Making one last, quick check to see how things have been going here in my absence, before leaving for my vacation, and I see an RFA that’s been on my watchlist finally turn blue. I know I’m early, but please either forgive me, or someone remove this and replace it after it goes live, as I won’t be near a computer for a couple of weeks.</small> I don’t believe in quick and easy redemption, but I do believe in redemption thru hard work, and that’s what Shalom has put into this project. I’ve interacted with him only a handful of times, but have, in each case, been impressed with the calm, mature, knowledgeable, hard working, and rational person on the other end. This includes reacting gracefully to an (in retrospect) unwise and stress-inducing email I sent him in the middle of his last RFA. At some point, the past becomes the past; we grow, and hopefully people eventually notice and trust in that growth. I very much hope that people will take time to carefully review his contributions since last summer, and either vote "yes", or at least not vote a knee-jerk "never!", but a well thought out "no". I believe Shalom's problems are behind him, that he has done more than enough good work to re-gain our trust, and that Shalom’s adminship will be a benefit to the encyclopedia. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Strong Support''' - I have found Shalom has already contributed a great deal to the project and this promotion would allow him to contribute even more. Most importantly, Shalom has a clue and that is probably the most important attribute an administrator should have. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 01:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#He's gained my trust. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 19:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#Yep. [[User:EJF|EJF]] ([[User talk:EJF|talk]]) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#A very rare case of a previously disruptive user actually reforming, I've had several good interactions with Shalom and believe he could be trusted with admin tools. The fact that he has been so open about his past behaviour demands at least the respect of his fellow editors. [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">пﮟოьεԻ</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#Strong support before this is snow closed. Shalom can be fully trusted imho. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:[[User talk:Everyme|Everyme]]'''''</span> 21:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Strong Moral Support''' This is going to be kind of convoluted, but what the heck, why not? So, I'm supposed to be on wikibreak (in fact, it's an enforced wikibreak which is why I'm not signed in) but I have to comment here. I have a huge amount of respect for Shalom and his ability to turn it all around and go from a vandal to someone that would actually be considered in an RFA. I also think he's very brave to be honest about his past and even list his previous offenses. I don't think this RfA will pass, because there are a lot of people who believe- and for good reason, that someone with a history like Shalom simply cannot be trusted with sysop tools. I really wish that wasn't the truth, but it is. בהצלחה --[[User:L'Aquatique|L'Aquatique]] ([[User talk:L'Aquatique|talk]]) (editing as [[Special:Contributions/70.41.234.190|70.41.234.190]] ([[User talk:70.41.234.190|talk]]) because of enforced wikibreak) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
#:'''Moral Support''' Well, he's been honest enough to tell us fully about his past, thats alot more than what some would do [[Special:Contributions/203.122.240.118|203.122.240.118]] ([[User talk:203.122.240.118|talk]]) 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::Please read the rules regarding RFA participation at [[WP:RFA]]: you need to have an account and to be logged in to vote in an RFA. It takes all of three minutes to open an account and you are welcome to come back and vote then. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:::Note that, however, his/her !vote would be discounted anyway because they would be considered a single-purpose account. —[[User:Mizu onna sango15|<font color="red">Mizu onna sango15</font>]]/<sup>'''[[User talk:Mizu onna sango15|<font color="black">Discuss</font>]]'''</sup> 23:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::::Oh, sorry. I figured since I said who I was it wouldn't be a big deal. My enforced wikibreak (I am NEVER doing that again) expires in a few hours, I'll come back once I'm logged in and confirm that it's really me. [[User:L'Aquatique|L'Aquatique]] [[Special:Contributions/70.41.234.190|70.41.234.190]] ([[User talk:70.41.234.190|talk]]) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:::::L'Aquatique, the other IP was indented–your statement of who you are has been taken at face value. [[User:Darkspots|Darkspots]] ([[User talk:Darkspots|talk]]) 00:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Support''' It's hard to argue with Iridescent's oppose, and I won't. I'm supporting this request for adminship because I think Shalom as an administrator over at SSP would be extremely good for the project. That he's willing to work at great length over there without the tools is highly commendable. Everytime I bring something to SSP, I think, "I should help out over here". And then I don't, because who wants to put the time in that it takes to look through a sockpuppetry case and then just say, "Agree, looks like sockpuppetry" without having the block button? The backlog at SSP is really long, but Shalom's well-reasoned comment often goes on the case relatively quickly. Giving him the tools would mean that would be a resolved case instead. [[User:Darkspots|Darkspots]] ([[User talk:Darkspots|talk]]) 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Support''' - Change of heart. Maybe you don't have the best track record, but you seem willing to help in areas that need desperate attention. Here's my support, and I hope you manage to pass. [[User:Metagraph|<font face="arial" color="#3300CC">Me</font><font color="#3333CC">ta</font><font color="#3333CC">gr</font><font color="#3366FF">aph</font>]] <small> [[User_Talk:Metagraph|'''comment''']]</small> 02:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Moral Support''' Many administrators have behaved very poorly in the oppose votes. [[User:SashaNein|SashaNein]] ([[User talk:SashaNein|talk]]) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:How so? I see nothing wrong with their behavior, nor their oppose rationale; they have all opposed for legitimate reasons. — <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">[[User:Scetoaux|scetoaux]] <span style="font-size: 10pt">([[User_talk:Scetoaux|T]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/Scetoaux|C]])</span></span> 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::I tend to agree with Scetoaux. I obviously don't agree with the opposers' !votes, but supporting this RFA takes something of a leap of faith, and it's understandable that some reasonable people don't see this leap as being prudent. I'm saddened by it, of course, but I don't see anything from admins in the oppose section that I'd characterize as "very poor behaviour". [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 03:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Support''', he has over a year and a half of experiance. –[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCentury]][[User talk:BuickCenturyDriver|Driver]] 02:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Moral support''' – I'm a strong believer reformism, but it looks like you need to put some more mileage between you and these more recent events. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font><font color="#DCDCDC">cidic</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 03:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
|||
#'''Oppose'''. This stretches "please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning" to the limits, but I hope it qualifies (as per Barneca's comments) as "a well thought out no, not a knee-jerk never!" – this is not a simple "yes, punish him for the past" oppose, but the longest RFA argument I've ever written (and hopefully, the longest I'll ever write; if anyone still wants evidence that the RFA process has problems, a single discussion comment longer than<span class="plainlinks"> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Successful_adminship_candidacies&oldid=1449014#Paul_A five old-style RFAs combined]</span> is surely it). <br> In my opinion, if we were to apply policy with anything approaching consistency this user would never have been allowed to come back as an editor, let alone be being considered at RFA for the fourth time, and I don't really understand why he isn't community banned given that people have been banned for far less. (Yes, he could have started a fresh account. If he had, then either he'd be an editor in good standing now with nobody aware of his past and none of this would have arisen, or we'd have another [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Archtransit desysopped|Archtransit]] on our hands. But, he didn't, and we can only judge any case by what evidence we have.) However, be all that as it may; since consensus seems to be that he's "served his time", I'll judge purely on his behaviour since the last RFA. Unfortunately, I don't think SY has been a model contributor even since he cleaned up his act. <br> While he may no longer be actively vandalising and trolling, I do not trust with a delete button someone who thinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Issacharoff&diff=prev&oldid=223159470 "I have not actually read the article but I think it might be autobiographical"] is a valid deletion reason. Most deal-breakingly for me, it's only a short time since he<span class="plainlinks"> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28events%29&diff=220649839&oldid=195820300 unilaterally invented a "policy"] and then, despite [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28events%29#Discussion|the only other contributor to the "debate" disagreeing with him]], set about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080702233731&limit=71&contribs=user&target=Shalom+Yechiel&namespace=1&year=&month= unilaterally enforcing it]</span> with no discussion and no serious attempt at discussion (unless he really thinks that typical users routinely watchlist [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)]]). Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular ''decision'' (I personally think it's wrong, but can see valid reasons to agree with it) there's a difference between being [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and being disruptive – as a regular at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains|WikiProject Trains]] I can vouch for the fact that he never even attempted to discuss the matter with the project working with the articles in question. In an admin, particularly someone who intends to work in a sensitive field like [[WP:SSP|SSP]], unilateral "I think it's better this way" actions generally cause problems. <small>(Note: This isn't a case of me [[WP:OWN]]ing articles – none of the articles affected were articles I've ever worked on.)</small><br> Whilst I do appreciate the eloquence and obvious effort that's gone into SY's acceptance statement, I think most of his points are irrelevant. While I appreciate that [[Halakha|Mosaic law]] is important to SY in his private life, an argument based upon it ''in the context of Wikipedia'' has no more relevance than an argument based on the [[Law in Star Trek|Starfleet Directives]] or the [[Laws of Ælfred]]; even were I to believe it, a system of arbitrary, dictated, non-negotiable rules doesn't, in my opinion, have any relevance to a system founded on consensus and [[WP:IAR|ignoring rules]]. The RFA process isn't about "has he served his time", but a question of trust. In this particular case, I'm sorry to say that I while I appreciate that plenty of people whose opinions I respect ''do'' appear to trust him, I still don't. It's not, as he says in his statement, that I necessarily expect him to repeat his misconduct; it's that I believe the ''possibility'' (I don't like to use the word "probability", which in this context carries negative connotations) that he'll "turn rogue" again is unacceptably high. It may be over a year since the last bout of outright vandalism, but it's only a couple of months since the last bout of "I've had enough and I'm never coming back" sulking. <br> Although in most cases, quite rightly, off-wiki activity shouldn't be considered relevant to Wikipedia, in my opinion this is one of those cases where that consideration doesn't apply. SY maintains [http://yrobinso.livejournal.com/ a blog] which functions as a ''de facto'' attack site (reading [http://yrobinso.livejournal.com/2008/04/06/ this post] in particular took away any chance I had of taking this candidate seriously). Also, on too many occasions his response to anyone disagreeing with him has been to post at great length on the matter to WR. I'm well aware that a number of editors (including me) post occasionally at WR and don't get in any trouble for doing so. However, there's a qualitative difference between occasionally explaining policy and how particular decisions were reached or discussing concerns about a particular editor's behaviour away from the "pressure cooker" of highly watched talkpages whilst keeping it on a site that anyone can read, and SY's posts, which include accusations of sockpuppetry against Arbcom members, repeated attacks on anyone who agrees with anyone he sees as part of "the cabal", and so on. <br> Over the last few months, there have been a number of decent, hardworking editors who've failed RFA because of a few relatively minor, historical, transgressions or personality clashes. Given that, I see no reason whatsoever why we should bend precedent to breaking point to give sysop rights to a user who's idea of building an encyclopedia is to follow [[User talk:Badlydrawnjeff|Badlydrawnjeff]] around changing his signature to [[BadlyDrawnJoke]], and who (less than three months ago) said that his goal on Wikipedia was to "start the biggest arbitration case in the history of Wikipedia, involving dozens of users and administrators, to atone for the accumulated guilt of administrators".<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::Can you provide a diff for "start the biggest arbitration case in the history of Wikipedia, involving dozens of users and administrators, to atone for the accumulated guilt of administrators"? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:::Paragraph 11 [http://yrobinso.livejournal.com/2008/04/06/ here] (the one that starts, "Returning to the Innocence WikiProject"). As per my argument above, I believe in this case the use of his off-Wiki postings ''is'' relevant to this candidacy.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::::For clarity, the desired case was to deal with alleged admin abuse towards wrongly blocked users, and not merely for the sake of drama. You haven't claimed otherwise, but, out of context, the quote of his seems to suggest drama-mongering. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:::::There are some good points here, but renaming the "rail accident" articles is not one of them. I spent two hours writing a draft page in userspace to explain why the difference in names was a problem. I copied that to [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)]], put an RFC template for the category that appeared to be most relevant, and I think I left a note on [[WP:VPA]] also. I can't think of every place to post discussions. I also waited a few days before changing the policy page itself and going ahead with the wholesale page moves. I figured, "If really nobody cares, I'll [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and fix the issue myself." You are telling me now that you care, but you didn't leave me a note on my talk page to tell me that you disagreed with my opinion. I'm really not sure how else I should have acted in this case. Sure, going forward, I am happy to discuss the matter, and I made a reasonable effort (more than reasonable, given the time I put into drafting the RFC) to discuss it before doing anything, but I got no response. So I really don't see why this is grounds to oppose a request for sysop tools. |
|||
#:::::I also object to the characterization of my blog as an "attack page," and to my postings on Wikipedia Review as attacks on other editors. I had the "fantasy" (you will find that word later in the cited blog post) about the biggest ArbCom case in history, but I also had the good sense not to pursue the matter further. I don't think I said anything about FT2 that I have to apologize for; he emailed me about it, and we resolved the matter between ourselves. I don't think I have said anything about SlimVirgin, Jimbo or Raul654 that I have to apologize for, either, but if these individuals contact me (either on my talk page or by email) and ask me to remove the portions about them from my blog, I will comply. I'm a nice guy like that. So I understand why you oppose - there are other reasons which I don't have a response for - but I wanted to set the record straight on those two points. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' - Given the track record, and the assessment since the last RfA, I see no reason to trust this user at the moment, or the foreseeable future for that matter. I can't say anything more than Iridescent has already said. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Strong Oppose''' per iridescent. Looking through irid's reasoning and all the alternate accounts, I can't possibly see how I could trust you to be an admin. I don't see anything amazingly swaying in your contribs, not enough pros to outweigh the cons. Giggy, you're ''nominating'' this guy!?!?!? O.o--[[User:KojiDude|<font color="purple">Koji</font>]][[Christianity|<font color="blue">†</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="indigo">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="pink">(C)</font></sup>]] 19:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:I don't think it's particularly fair to be amazed at giggy nominating Shalom. He's worked hard to come clean about his past history and has been "clean" for a long time. It takes a lot for a man to admit guilt and he's done tremendous work for the encyclopedia. There are legitimate concerns raised by Iridecent, which is unfortunate because it does tone down the other work Shalom has done. But still - your final comment was flippant to say the least. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="color:#000088;">Ry<span style="color:#220066;">an<span style="color:#550044;"> P<span style="color:#770022;">os<span style="color:#aa0000;">tl</span>et</span>hw</span>ai</span>te</span>''']] 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::I agree with Ryan, objecting due to legit concerns is one thing, but being flippant and condescending is going too far. SY has worked hard to redeem himself and that needs to be duly considered by the community. Koji, I strongly suggest you refactor that statement.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:::Agreed. As you can see I oppose this candidacy for many reasons, but there ''are'' perfectly valid reasons to support him – attacking the nominators won't help.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 19:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:Yes, yes I am. My reasoning is above. Did you read it? —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' - I completely understand that he has come "clean" (as Ryan put it), but I can't trust anyone who has attacked the project in the past. For whatever reason, there's absolutely no excuse to hurt Wikipedia. I could never trust anyone who has been deceptive in the past, even if they have admitted to it and have openly "rehabilitated" so to speak. My apologies, Shalom. [[User:Scarian|<font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian</font>]][[User_talk:Scarian|<font color="red"><sup>Call me Pat!</sup></font>]] 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' per self-admitted long list of sockpuppets. As far as forgiveness for mistakes goes: Personally, I've made several mistakes on Wikipedia, and they're still in [[Special:Contributions/Elkman|my record]]. If I screw something up, I'm liable for it, '''forever'''. If I get something right, who cares? The same should apply to other editors. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] <sup>[[User talk:Elkman|(Elkspeak)]]</sup> 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:[[Image:Lolbadger.jpg|100px|thumb|Please, think of the badgers.]] |
|||
#:So you think that the attitude "mistakes should be held against us forever, and our good works should be ignored" is what ''should'' apply to other editors? If not, could you clarify what you mean by "The same"? I'm not a big van of !vote-badgering, but yours is such a head-scratcher that I think elaboration would be helpful. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::I'd have to think about that. It certainly applies to me; I'm not sure yet it applies to everyone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] <sup>[[User talk:Elkman|(Elkspeak)]]</sup> 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#I'm shocked to see this request. Just reading the nomination shows me ''precisely'' why we can't accept Shalom as an admin... ever. Some people are just not suited I'm afraid. I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet. Certainly shouldn't be promoted to admin. '''[[User:Al tally|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Al Tally</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Al tally|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:"I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet." Do you seriously want to ban me? I can only quote the words of Jonathan who implored his father Saul not to murder the young David: למה יומת מה עשה - "Why should he be killed? What has he done?" (Samuel I 20:32) [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::No, I don't want to ban you. I said I'm surprised you haven't been. As for the question in the bible quote, see the nomination statement, and Iridescent's oppose for plenty of "what have I done" things. '''[[User:Al tally|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Al Tally</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Al tally|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:::I think it's disingenuous to say that you're surprised I wasn't banned and then imply that you didn't actually advocate banning me. If you don't want to ban me, then who do you think ''does'' want to ban me? Do you assume such bad faith of your fellow editors that you think ''anyone'' would want to ban an editor as productive as I have been? Doesn't the encyclopedia come first?? I'm willing to live without adminship - I'll probably withdraw this request before I go to sleep tonight - but this talk about banning me has to stop, and all statements to that effect need to be shoved down the drain. It's really not helpful to be talking, even in theoretical terms, about banning an editor with 25,000+ edits, 300+ articles created, and numerous contributions to various venues of the encyclopedia and administration, who has admitted his past mistakes and has maintained an essentially clean record on-wiki for more than a year. Please retract your earlier remarks - and that goes for the other one or two of you who also hinted at banning me. I can tolerate a lot of criticism (Heaven knows I deserve it), but this is really over the top. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::::I don't think it's over the top. You've vandalised multiple wikis with various sockpuppets, including impersonations of established users (myself included). Your article contributions are appreciated, but really, you're completely and utterly unsuited to this role. How do we know you aren't vandalising again right now? You were doing so during your last RfA. I simply cannot trust you at all. If you had been taken to an admin noticeboard around this time last year, or whenever your last admitted vandalism was, you'd probably have been banned there and then. That's my experience of the community. Not bad faith on my part. '''[[User:Al tally|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Al Tally</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Al tally|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Weak Oppose''', with regrets. Shalom has reformed since his early days and is usually a good contributor. However, his recent blog postings are a dealbreaker. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] ([[User talk:Majoreditor|talk]]) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose'''Al Tally says it best. The long list of sockpuppets and with all the other issues with accounts, I can't support. I too have made many mistakes on Wikipedia, but you have way to many mistakes. I am really sorry. [[User:America69|America69]] ([[User talk:America69|talk]]) 20:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' I can understand if someone was blocked once or twice...people make mistakes and learn from them. But the candidate's history does little to build confidence. I would recommend the candidate taking the next 12-18 months to rebuild cred in a substantial manner. At this point in time, however, a request to become an admin is very peculiar. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' The blog postings did it for me, showed some pretty deep bias and POV issues regarding the articles that he edits. Also, the highly conflicted nature of the postings in regards to wikipedia suggest that if something goes badly, user may take [[WP:DDMP|drastic action]].--[[User:Finalnight|Finalnight]] ([[User talk:Finalnight|talk]]) 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' pretty much per everyone else listed here. I wouldn't feel at all comfortable with you as an administrator. That said, it's clear you've been improving as an editor and you're clearly good at what you do. There is simply too much against you for me to support. I'm sorry. — <font face="rage italic" size="4.5px">'''[[User:Cyclonenim|''CycloneNimrod'']]'''</font> <sup><font face="Tahoma" size="1">[[User_talk:Cyclonenim|Talk?]]</font></sup> 20:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''', per nomination and the opening statement. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 20:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose'''. Not right now. — <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:SynergeticMaggot|<b><font color="#222222">Syn</font></b>]]</span></sup></small> 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' per Iridescent and opening statement.—[[User:Sandahl|<span style="color:#000000; font-family:monospace, monospace; cursor:crosshair;">''''' Ѕandahl'''''</span>]] 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#I wasn't originally going to vote as I didn't want to put in the effort required to write an oppose that wouldn't get me accused of making a knee-jerk reaction to his history, but iridescent has handily compiled pretty much everything I was thinking. I'm not fussed about his past as a vandal so much as I am bothered by his recent behaviour in general. [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 21:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#I rarely comment "Oppose per", but this time I will. '''Oppose''' per Iridescent. He said it better (and longer) than I could or would care to. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]] [[User:S. Dean Jameson|Dean]] [[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|Jameson]] 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#I can see such a vast range of poor behaviour in what is, for a person, the very recent past that I cannot trust Shalom with the tools. I see a string of RfAs showing perhaps a desparate need for the badge and an editor who has not proven that they have self control - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 21:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. --<span class="plainlinks">[[User:Admrboltz|Admrb♉ltz]] <small>([[User talk:Admrboltz|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Admrboltz|c]] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|user=Admrboltz}} log])</span></small> 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose'''. Certainly your opening statement is well written and I commend your honesty about all your past transgressions. And indeed, your work at SSP has been generally very good. Quite possibly, at some indeterminate point in the future, I could trust you as an admin. But right now a lot of these problems (which Iridescent put so succinctly) are still in the very recent past and I would not feel remotely comfortable giving you the admin tools. ~ <span style="color:#000000;">[[User:Mazca|<span style="color:#228b22;">'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|<span style="color:#000000;">'''t'''</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Mazca|<span style="color:#000000;">'''c'''</span>]]</sup></span> 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Weak oppose'''. I agree with Ryan and Rlevse, and I would completely trust this user if not for the diffs and long list of alt. accounts. Sorry. —[[User:Mizu onna sango15|<font color="red">Mizu onna sango15</font>]]/<sup>'''[[User talk:Mizu onna sango15|<font color="black">Discuss</font>]]'''</sup> 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' per nom, in fact. Most of what I read in the nomination statement had the opposite effect of making me want to support this user, as well as the items pointed out by Iridescent. At this time it's probably unadvisable to attempt to pull reformed vandals through RFA. — <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">[[User:Scetoaux|scetoaux]] <span style="font-size: 10pt">([[User_talk:Scetoaux|T]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/Scetoaux|C]])</span></span> 23:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#After a bit of a think, I must come down firmly as an '''oppose'''. Shalom, I am very much impressed with your openness and honesty, and insistence on retaining your negative history and holding it forward as a badge to prove how much you have reformed; so please, do not think my oppose has anything at all to do with that. I am ready to let bygones be bygones, there. However, after reading the oppose from Iridescent, I am still unconvinced that you have the temperament necessary to be an effective administrator. I think that you are still struggling with some of the ideals and concepts that Wikipedia is founded on; without commitment to those core principles, you will not be able to uphold our policies correctly. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="0000FF">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="0000FF">Cobra</font>]]''' 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' as per Iridescent and Glass Cobra. I appreciate that you have worked to reform, but while I feel that you are now a useful contributor, there is no way that I can support you as an admin, because of all of the issues that have been pointed out by others. '''[[User:Horologium|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Horologium</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Absolutely not'''. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] | [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 00:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:<s>'''Very, very strong oppose'''. per my questions. 8 indef bannings? Google bombing? Seriously, you can tell us you've reformed all you want but you've been caught lying, cheating the system, sockputtetting, and vandalising other wiki's, it destroys others trust in you. Who next? Grawp?[[User:Metagraph|<font face="arial" color="#3300CC">Me</font><font color="#3333CC">ta</font><font color="#3333CC">gr</font><font color="#3366FF">aph</font>]] <small> [[User_Talk:Metagraph|'''comment''']]</small> 00:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)</s> |
|||
#The notion that Shalom's prior history of unseemly conduct should be ignored is patently absurd. Anybody can comport themselves in a reasonable manner for a short amount of time, but the true nature of their character can be divined through examination of all the information available, such as the incredible chutzpah he showed by actively vandalizing during one of his past RFAs and then lying about it. Adults are generally unable to change their behavior, so I cannot lend any trust to a candidate with such a checkered past and lack of integrity. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#ccc 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 03:04, July 14, 2008''</small>]] |
|||
#:To be clear, I'm not suggesting that his past conduct should be ignored, but that it should be considered as part of the entire package. Moreover, he hasn't only "comported himself in a reasonable manner for a short amount of time", he has actively confronted his past when he could have run from it. As for the notion that "Adults are generally unable to change their behaviour", I disagree with it generally and in the case of adults with a history of mental illness specifically. Ultimately, this RFA is a judgment call on which I think reasonable people can disagree, and I know from experience that you're a reasonable person, so I'm not asking you to change your mind - I was just bothered by a couple of your points. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 03:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#::Choosing not to run from his past certainly shows gumption on Shalom's part, which is quite admirable. However, this doesn't change that he flew off the rails before and is liable to do it again (hence me being unable to lend my trust). Look at it this way: I have no doubt Shalom is a great guy and wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer, but at the same time I wouldn't consider employing him. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#008080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 03:56, July 14, 2008''</small>]] |
|||
#:::And that's a perfectly understandable judgment call. I, on the other hand, would be happy to hire him (depending on the position - Wikipedia admin's filed on the "would hire" side), but he'd have to buy his own damned beer. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 04:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#While I like the fact that the user has reformed and been productive lately, the rationale and diffs provided by Iridescent are too much to overlook. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' Sorry, but no. I'm afraid that I simply don't trust Shalom enough to support this request. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 03:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Strong Oppose'''--Per the long history of you breaking policies.[[User:Gears of War|<font face="Bauhaus 93" size="2.0" color="#7D0008"> King</font>]][[User talk:Gears of War|<font face="Times New Roman" size="2.3" color="#FFBE26"> '''Rock''' </font>]]('''Gears of War''') 03:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' Sorry, I feel the same way as Wizardman does. I hope this editor may improve his consistency for a longer period of time before retrying. Hopefully that shall prove his dedication and maybe then I'll support. Know that I am offering Moral Support, but I'm not doing Oppose with Moral Support because I know how that ticked me off a little bit during my own failed RfA. [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<span style="color:#000066;">- Jameson L. Tai</span>''''']] <sup style="color:#660000;">''[[User talk:Jamesontai|<span style="color:#660000;">talk</span>]] ♦ [[Special:Contributions/Jamesontai|<span style="color:#660000;">contribs</span>]]''</sup> 04:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''oppose''' Even if Ignored everything Iridiscent said my response would be at most "not yet". Frankly, we've had direct problems before with editors insisting that halachah is somehow relevant to Wikipedia, and while I've used halachic analogies on previous occasions, what Yechiel does is a) far more than that and b) demonstrates a very narrow world view. If one does want a more halachic analogy, even if after [[Reish Lakish]] did [[Teshuva]], he had to wait a few years before he became a respected rabbi. The issues brought up by Iridescent make this all the more relevant. I haven't seen persuasive evidence of real [[Teshuva]] here so we aren't even to the stage of Reish Lakish. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 05:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' - Your responses [[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/July_2008#User:L.L.King|here]] were appallingly inaccurate. Likewise, your [[User_talk:BQZip01/Archive_4#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FL.L.King_.282nd.29|request for input here]] from a heavily biased party was similarly disappointing. For you to turn from a sockpuppet case with weighty, voluminous evidence and then say that [[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:TheYieldCurve|this is an open and shut case]] with far less evidence and with much less detail would lead me to question your neutrality in such cases. I do not think you would be fit to make judgements in SSP as an administrator. [[User:Cumulus Clouds|Cumulus Clouds]] ([[User talk:Cumulus Clouds|talk]]) 05:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Oppose''' Ive supported this user in a previous RFA, but I am no longer convinced that hes admin material. Whilst he still maintains a blog that attacks wikipedia, decides that one say wikipedia isnt his thing, and vandalises wikipedia via IP, whilst claiming he isnt. I think this user needs to grow up. Come back in 6 months, when you can prove that youre not leaving us, that youve matured, and that youre not vandalising wikipedia. There is still hope. [[User:Five Years|Five]] [[User talk:Five Years|Years]] 06:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
|||
#I continue to have the greatest respect for Shalom's honesty in continuing as he has done rather than giving up and starting a new account without disclosing the connection. Had he done so, I believe he would have been an admin by now. That is a brave decision and I believe that this willingness to face the consequences shows a real strength of character. I remain concerned that the difficulty Shalom faces in passing RfA having owned up to past mistakes sends the wrong message to others in similar positions, who may be tempted to take the either route of severing ties and starting again. For my part, my personal interactions with Shalom have always been positive - he is a helpful and hardworking contributor to this project. I believe he has reformed and readily supported his last RfA. It is with regret that I am not supporting this one. The tone and content of blog posts bothers me, and in my opinion goes beyond fair comment, showing a lack of perspective and unwillingness to assume good faith which I find problematic. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#:I appreciate the sentiment behind this comment, and will take it to heart. [[User:Shalom Yechiel|Yechiel]] ([[User talk:Shalom Yechiel|Shalom]]) 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
#For the record I have never ''personally'' run in to any issues with this user and have always found his contributions to be useful and good. Some of the issues here are fairly large and cannot be outright ignored, but I would not feel right joining the opposition on this discussion. [[User:Shereth|<b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b>]][[User_talk:Shereth|<b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b>]] 01:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> |