User:Placeholder account/RFA review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: I am drafting this page under my alternate account in order to avoid exposure during the run of my RFA.

This page in a nutshell: Please review my RFAs, and advise how I can be forgiven for my vandalism, and when I may regain the community's trust. --<add sig>

Thank you for participating in either of my two RFA discussions:

I would now like some guidance from the community.

Contents

[edit] Background

My credentials demonstrate sufficient experience in all areas of Wikipedia to be trusted with administrator tools. My contribution history speaks for itself. In particular, I have started more than 100 deletion discussions, and have commented on more than 400 others. I also have an impeccable record of civil interaction with other users.

If adminship were truly "no big deal," as Jimbo has written, then I would probably be an admin right now. What happened?

[edit] My first RFA

I nominated myself for adminship after three months of significant activity. My edit count was about 2700, on the low end of the spectrum, but I had plenty of experience in Wikipedia space and had become familiar with many other users. The voting started off with 8 support votes and one "neutral leaning toward oppose" ([1]). Then User:Vary unearthed a scandal that changed the whole discussion:

#Strong Opppose With no real prejudice against reapplying with a more substantial contribution history and more user interaction. 2,700 edits and three months of regular editing is kind of on the low end for an editor with a clean record, but I'd need to see a lot more than that before I'd be willing to overlook the candidate's history of vandalism and the rather meanspirited Googlebomb he set up early in his career here. [2] [3] [4] [5] I have to admit I'm not encouraged by the fact that the user didn't own up to these actions and apologize for them/reassure us that he'd changed his ways in his nomination. -- Vary | Talk 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From there it was a runaway train. My sincere explanation and apology for the Google bombing incident, and Riana's pointer that it happened fifteen months prior, did nothing to stem the tempestuous tide. I decided to quit while I was ahead, go back to work, and try again in a couple of months.

[edit] My second RFA

On June 1, I decided I was ready to apply again. Knowing that inexperience and vandalism were the two main concerns, I demonstrated that I had vastly improved my experience, and I had restrained my temptation to make mischief. I foolishly wrote, "Of the last four thousand contribs at Special:Contributions/YechielMan, you might find one or two which could be considered vandalism." My intention was that I was no longer vandalizing, but I might have made a couple of thoughtless mistakes. For those of you keeping score, 2 edits out of 4,000 is 0.05%.

So when Ryan Postlethwaite asked me to explain, I could have responded, "Why don't you search through 4,000 contribs to find a needle in a haystack?" But I answered honestly, and suddenly an enthusiastic support changed to a disdainful oppose. Then Kathryn NicDhàna asked about the Googlebombing incident, and my honest answer was not enough to placate her. The voting started with 6 opposes before someone decided to end the madness. If it's any consolation, I probably set a record by receiving nine votes of "moral support."

[edit] Examining the issues

Many different reasons were given to oppose my second RFA. Let me address them, one by one:

[edit] The Google bombing incident

Imagine that an editor creates a new account, User:Colbert4ever. His first twelve edits are to vandalize articles by adding the sentence, "The population of elephants in Africa has tripled in the last six months." He ignores all warnings and is blocked for 24 hours. Then he apologizes to the blocking admin, learns the rules, and becomes a model citizen on Wikipedia. After six thousand edits and more than a year later, without any further incident, he applies for adminship. Would you oppose him on the basis of his original vandalism?

"Ah," you say, "but that's different."

Damn right it's different. Not only was I not blocked for the edits associated with the Googlebomb, I was not even warned. You can check my talk page archive and history - there's nothing to see.

Here are diffs of all ten edits in the Google bomb plot from December 2005 and January 2006. Eight of them are among my first twelve edits, and the other two precede my long Wikibreak between January and July 2006.

I have apologized to the community for these edits. I was a newcomer at the time. I find it ridiculously unfair that I am still being punished for soiling my diapers and throwing tantrums after I have matured into an adult. To the best of my knowledge, no other Wikipedian has had to answer for their newbie mistakes at RFA.

[edit] Other vandalism edits

Four other problematic edits have been cited at my RFAs. This one was from January 2006, so I consider it prehistoric. This page blanking finally earned me a warning from AntiVandalBot, my third talk page message and only warning ever (see User talk:YechielMan/Archive 1). After that, the infantile vandalism stopped.

In my 2nd RFA, I disclosed two other edits that "might be considered vandalism." In both cases I feel there were mitigating factors. First, I indicated in edit summaries that both edits were jokes. That means I wasn't exactly trying to hide what I was doing. Second, both edits followed some kind of logic. "Miserable failure" does have a connection to George W. Bush, and the Orthodox Rabbinical Biography of the Week had become dormant and was not really "of the week" anymore.

Third, I tried to correct my mistakes afterward. I returned later to discover that others had been retargeting "miserable failure" just like I had done, so I requested and received full page protection. After my silly edit to the template was reverted, I started a TFD to discuss the substance of the issue, viz. why was this project "of the week" dormant, and should it continue? That was a legitimate forum to raise my concerns, and I eventually withdrew the nomination.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that both edits were inappropriate. I should have known better, and I will avoid such jokes in the future. I expect that my continued good behavior will demonstrate that those two edits do not represent my persona.

By the way, Vary wrote in my first RFA that I should have disclosed the Google bombing incident. Having disclosed the two more recent edits, I am no longer certain that disclosing my mistakes will be in my best interest. Had Vary not remembered the incident for my first RFA (would anyone else have noticed?), or had I declined to say anything about vandalism in my second RFA, I would not now be seeking your advice.

[edit] Deletion criteria

Several users opposed me for interpreting WP:IAR in a way that might lead to speedy deletion of legitimate articles or premature closure of discussions. I've checked my recent contribution history, and I acknowledge that this is a valid concern. By itself, however, it should not have been a deal breaker. I will be more careful to limit my use of speedy deletion templates to the parameters of WP:CSD.

[edit] Being a dick

  • Not withdrawing after a poor start. Seeing my RFA start at 0/6/0 and move to 4/9/1, I was concerned that it might be snowballed - in retrospect, that concern was misplaced - so I wrote a hidden message to keep it open. I was under no obligation to withdraw the RFA. I knew what the community had decided, but I wanted more users to offer their specific reasons to support or oppose.
  • Complaining about the RFA in an AFD nomination. I wasn't trying to improve my performance at the RFA because it was already a lost cause. I also wasn't making a bad-faith nom because there are legitimate notability problems with Edward Behr (food writer). I was just venting my frustration.
  • Complaining about not being forgiven on WP:AN. There was no violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. I am entitled to express my opinion.

How do any of these three concerns affect my ability to perform sysop duties? Could someone please explain this to me?

[edit] Forgiveness

There is a fundamental problem with the Wikipedian community. People do not forgive mistakes. One opposer wrote,

#Oppose I don't feel that an Admin should have ever vandalised Wikipedia.... — Taggard (Complain) 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another insisted,

#Oppose - at least a year with clean hands before trying again. HeartofaDog 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Another spoke the final word:

#Oppose You vandalized. It's over. RuneWiki777 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The implication is loud and clear. If you make one slip-up, one error, one foolish mistake, you had better not apply for adminship until the End of Days. There is nothing you can do to recover your reputation. There is nothing you can do to prove your integrity. WE WILL NEVER, EVER TRUST YOU WITH THE MOP.

I think you all need to consider the possibility that people change in real life, and users can change in virtual life. We were all newbies once. We all made mistakes during our first month on the wiki (though nothing as serious as what I did). We all can think of a few edits that we might like to take back.

The solution to our communal mistrust of one another is to institute a path to forgiveness. The inspiration for this comes from a hack performed on April Fools Day 2007, where a few editors started a page called "Requests for forgiveness." (It was soon deleted.) Someone confessed to a minor indiscretion, and asked, "May I be Wikicleansed of my Wikisins?" and another editor granted the request.

As you are all painfully aware, I have about fifteen vandalism edits in my contribution history. However, I also have more than six thousand good edits - many of which are to counteract vandalism and spam. I ask you, at what point have I proven that I am no longer interested in vandalism? After ten vandal reverts? 100? 500? More? Obviously I don't intend to start vandalizing and then say, "Well, I'll do vandal reverts and it will all be fine." But there needs to be some way for people who make honest mistakes to recover their reputation. Would I have made even one of those edits had I known it would effectively lead to an indef-block from sysop access? And would I not have more incentive to continue my overall stellar effort of cleanup and vandal-fighting if I can hope to regain your trust?

[edit] The next steps

To those of you who opposed based on my past vandalism, please give an honest and reasonable opinion as to what will convince you of my integrity. For example, "six months, 500 vandal reverts, and overall good behavior" is reasonable. "Vandals can never become admins" is, to my mind, not reasonable.

Please see the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#A user's past errors....how long ago is too long ago?. I hope the consensus on that thread will motivate an addition to WP:ANOT to the effect that "Adminship is not sainthood." :)

[edit] One final note

The tone of RFA discourse needs to soften. Before you accuse me of being a "sore loser", please re-read the more vicious oppose comments. Remember that I am a human being writing these words. Would you say such things to a friend in real life?

Please comment on the talk page, and I thank you in advance. <add sig>