Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom

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

Contents 1 Shalom 1.1 Questions for the candidate 1.2 General comments 1.3 Discussion 1.3.1 Support 1.3.2 Oppose 1.3.3 Neutral

[edit] Shalom

(34/45/10); Originally scheduled to end 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC). Withdrawn by bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Shalom (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Shalom for adminship. Some of you may know of Shalom under his old name of YechielMan, a user who underwent several unpleasant RfAs. His last one was in June of this year, and since then he has worked hard to gain/regain the trust that wasn't present in that one. Shalom has made a stack of edits to AIV (74), MFD (88), and ANI (126), and he is highly competent in those areas. He has also done great work on many articles including Endgame tablebase. It is my belief that Shalom would make an excellent administrator, so I submit him to the community for judgement. Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom from Riana - I'd just like to get in a word at this one :) Shalom aka Yechiel is a wonderful contributor, who has made many brilliant edits to articles related to chess and Judaism. Most of you have probably seen him at XfDs, where his comments are always pertinent and insightful. Yechiel's last RfAs failed because of an incident of vandalism and Google-bombing when he first joined Wikipedia. However, his attitude towards Wikipedia has changed vastly - I would go so far as to call him a model of the success we can achieve with our contributors given a good dose of second chances and good faith. I ask the community to consider his many thousands of good contributions since that incident - I know we are a forgiving lot, generally speaking, and would love to see that manifest itself in appointing Shalom as a worthy addition to the current administrative ranks.

Yechiel is invariably polite and constructive when dealing with fellow contributors, and is also very introspective, as shown by his reviews of his RfAs - a good trait in an admin, given that there's always a 50% chance you've done something wrong when you've blocked/deleted/protected :)

As far as paperwork goes, he has more than enough edits to satisfy edit counters, doesn't have a nasty userpage or signature, uses edit summaries and has e-mail enabled.

This is a great candidate - I hope he passes. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Amen. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why I want to become an administrator
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
As everyone knows, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Accordingly, we should offer the highest respect to the folks who write the articles. I have enjoyed reading articles written by the following users, among others: User:V8rik, who has authored several hundred articles about chemistry User:Awadewit, a graduate student, who has shared her interest in 19th century feminist literature by submitting many Good Articles and Featured Articles User:Freechild, who has produced a wealth of information on the history of Omaha, Nebraska User:Eliyak, a friend in real life, who has systematically improved a broad range of articles relating to Judaism. My own article contributions, by comparison to the All-Stars, are nothing to cheer about. I have authored one Good Article on endgame tablebases, which have strongly solved the game of chess for all positions with six men or fewer on the board. I have created or added information to about fifty other articles, as listed on my userpage. (A recent statistical study found that I created about 90 article pages, but half of those are disambiguation pages and material submitted by anonymous users via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.) Currently I am working to translate some articles about kibbutzim in the Beit She'an Valley from the Hebrew Wikipedia into English. I have listed several other ideas for new articles on my writing list. However, I spend less than half of my time on Wikipedia contributing new content. Rather, I focus the majority of my efforts to process other people's contributions and to perform various administrative tasks. I used to clean up dead-end pages, and I frequently categorize uncategorized pages. An article without wikilinks or categories generally needs to be reviewed by an experienced Wikipedia editor who can bring it closer to the standard of excellence which is our collective goal. In the process of adding wikilinks and categories, I look for other ways to improve these articles. Of necessity, a desire to improve bad articles must be balanced by a willingness to abide by the notability guidelines. I have sent hundreds of articles to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. I also comment frequently in deletion debates. Based on my extensive experience with the deletion process, I hope to close deletion debates and to process the never-ending backlogs at CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD. Occasionally, I patrol recent changes and Special:Newpages to revert vandalism, apply speedy deletion tags, and welcome or warn new users. Although I feel patrolling is a comparatively unproductive way to spend time on Wikipedia, I do it because I sometimes get bored, and I wish to share in the burden that the regular vandal-fighters carry every day. As an administrator, I will occasionally check WP:AIV and WP:UAA to block disruptive users and usernames. I enjoy the opportunity to review the contribution logs of various users for sad reasons or for happy reasons. The sad reasons are the oft-ignored requests for administrator attention at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Here, more than anywhere else, sysop access would be very useful for me. Noticing the slow response time for these reports, I have been analyzing some of them for the past few months. It is not always easy to make a determination, and I've developed the personality trait to ignore some of the nastier comments that arrive on my talk page when people don't like the way I feel about a sock puppetry case. The happy reason to review contribution logs is the editor review process. I have been involved there since I requested an editor review from User:Delldot in February. I personally have reviewed about 100 users, including a dozen current administrators, in my editor review archive. I try to make sure that everyone who requests a review receives one eventually, even if it's more than a month after the request. I also maintain Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive. I encourage all of you to consider participating in Editor review as a reviewer or reviewee. I learn a lot from the sundry users who have sought my advice. It builds a sense of community which is defined not by massive discussions involving hundreds of users, but rather by one-to-one communication where the goal is to make small, steady improvements. Similarly, I have done about twenty peer reviews. If this request succeeds, I will add a number of administrative pages, such as CAT:CSD, to the list of project pages I frequently visit. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to do many of the content-building and maintenance tasks that have defined my role for the last several months. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A note about my past actions of vandalism
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
I have applied twice before for adminship under my previous username: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YechielMan (March 2007) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YechielMan 2 (June 2007) Both requests failed because it was revealed that I had vandalized Wikipedia, especially when I was a new editor. After the second request, I sent a long message to everyone who commented at either RFA, explaining what I had done. I will summarize the relevant information briefly. Under my main user account (YechielMan), I attempted to set up a Google bomb by planting external links into Wikipedia articles. These were literally my very first edits on Wikipedia in December 2005, about two years ago. (Riana referred to this incident in her nomination statement.) I also made a few edits of simple vandalism in late 2006, after I became aware of the policies against vandalism and disruption. Details can be found in oppose #1 of my first RFA. I also vandalized a number of times under IP addresses without logging in, during the period between November 2006 and May 2007. I was once blocked for vandalism while editing under an IP address. I created a number of alternate accounts to impersonate other users, during the period between February and June 2007. All of these accounts were indef-blocked within hours of their creation. For the last five months, I have followed all policies and guidelines on Wikipedia to the best of my ability, and I will continue to do so. I am now asking for permission to enforce those policies as an administrator. I apologized to the individual editors who cleaned up after my vandalism. Some of them have explicitly forgiven me; some of them did not respond to my message; and some, such as User:Interiot, are no longer active on Wikipedia. I hope you will understand that I regret what I did, and that I have changed my ways. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A note about early XFD closures and my interpretation of IAR
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
I was notified that some of my recent XFD closures were being questioned on the Administrators' noticeboard. Some people offered the opinion that I acted within the rules, but others wrote that I should not have closed the discussions early. The rules on Wikipedia:Speedy keep and Wikipedia:Deletion policy do not support all of the AFD, MFD, TFD and RFD closures I have performed. The rules do not allow a non-admin to exercise judgment, but permit only the most technical actions. For example, if an administrator deleted a page, but did not yet place archive templates, a non-admin may "close" the discussion because there is nothing to discuss. (I have done this several times.) There are some cases where I have exercised judgment while relying on the snowball clause. Usually I stick to the following criteria when I close an XFD, especially when I do it before the 5 or 7 day period has elapsed: I check that the discussion has produced a nearly unanimous result. An early closure is only appropriate if the consensus is unambiguous. I scan the article to see if there is a counterargument that someone has missed, that would call this consensus into question. If there is, I would write a dissenting opinion, or I might not comment at all. If not, I project that further comments by other users are not likely to change the result. I may also check the page history to see if the article has improved significantly since it was nominated for deletion. I close the XFD, offering a clear rationale for why I think an early closure is appropriate. I believe that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules can be used to defend the active exercise of judgment by an experienced non-admin in clear-cut cases. Although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle MLS was not a bad-faith nomination, it also did not need to wait another four days before it could be closed. The guidelines recommending a 5-day wait for AFDs, or a 7-day wait for TFDs, are not firm policies. In some cases, 5 days is not long enough (usually because nobody has commented), or 1 day may already be long enough (usually because many people have commented). Consensus can be reached before or after the prescribed number of days. Whenever consensus is reached, that's a good time to close the discussion. In a broader view, "Ignore all rules" is not the same as "Violate all policies." Certain policies, such as Wikipedia:No legal threats, are immutable. Some guidelines, such as the proper formatting of a disambiguation page, are so unimportant that I would consider it okay to deviate from these guidelines for any reason. Early closures of AFD belong somewhere in the middle of this continuum. I am more willing to make an early "keep" closure than an early "delete" closure, because "keep" closures are easier to undo in case of a mistake. (Thus, I would be more willing to "speedy keep" than to "speedy delete" if the criteria are not fulfilled.) I am also more willing to make an early closure after 3 days than after 1 day because most comments on most XFDs are made in the first two days or so. I stand by the decisions I have made, but I understand that every case requires careful consideration. I will try to be even more careful in the future. From now on, I will not close an XFD early, based solely on WP:SNOW, before 24 hours have passed. Under this principle, I would not have closed the last two discussions here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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: See my statement above. Briefly, I will add CAT:CSD, CAT:PROD, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA to the list of pages I frequently visit. I will also make administrative decisions at WP:SSP and various XFDs. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

A: See my userpage and my statement above. My best article contribution is endgame tablebase. My best project-space contribution, taken as a whole, is my work at Wikipedia:Editor review. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:07, 13 November 2007 (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: My talk page archives preserve records of several conflicts with individual editors, but these conflicts were all short-lived and are not worth discussing here. I mentioned a few examples when I answered this question at previous RFAs. On the rare occasions when I am dealing with a conflict, I try to stay focused on the issue at hand, and to treat the other user with respect. I am aware of my limitations, and if an issue (such as a determination of sock puppetry at WP:SSP) is too difficult for me to decide, I will defer to another administrator. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Do you plan on updating Wikipedia while under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs? Keepscases (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

--Agüeybaná (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A: No. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question fron Yahel Guhan

5. When is it acceptable and proper to close an xfd as delete when the majority seems to say keep, or vice versa? Yahel Guhan 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A: Consensus is a delicate balance between a numerical majority of voters and the strength of their arguments. If the majority of voters say to keep, the logic behind the "delete" votes would need to be very strong in order to overcome the numerical factor within consensus. It's hard to be more specific without citing examples of past AFDs where this situation may have occurred. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

6. Going by time statistics, you have been breaking the rules longer than you have been following them, so why should I (or anyone else in the community) believe you are going to act any differnt in the future? How are we to know we can trust you will not just resort to your old ways, possibly doing something with the tools that can only be reverted by another admin, and maybe not even then? Yahel Guhan 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I assume you referred to vandalism when you asked about "breaking the rules". I take issue with the use of "time statistics" to evaluate whether I am fully committed to following the rules on Wikipedia. In the last five and a half months, I have tried to be not only a citizen who follows the rules, but an exemplary user who does more than what others expect me to do. In that period of time, I have made enough edits to be considered a fully experienced user without relying on any of the good work I did before that.

I must also emphasize that my life situation has changed considerably in the last six months. During the spring, I was suffering from a severe, prolonged mental illness, which I unfortunately tried to vent by vandalizing Wikipedia under alternate accounts. Today my mental problems seem to be completely healed, and I thank God every day that I can live a happy life, and I ask God every day, as part of my standard prayer service, to forgive the sins of my past.

Aside from my personal integrity, which means more to me than anything related to an online encyclopedia that didn't exist until I was 18 years old, I am always aware of the consequences of willful misconduct. I would not sacrifice my hard-earned reputation for integrity over the last five months for the momentary thrill of misconduct. If I make an honest mistake, any admin can fix it; and you can trust me never to act dishonestly. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Kathryn NicDhàna

7. You state above that "'For the last five months, I have followed all policies and guidelines on Wikipedia to the best of my ability, and I will continue to do so." However, in your last RfA you stated that you were no longer vandalising. During that RfA it was discovered that you were still vandalising, sometimes extensively, under sockpuppet and IP accounts.[1] You lied.[2] So, why should we believe you this time? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I knew this question would come sooner or later. There are a number of ways you can convince yourself that I am acting truthfully this time.

1. I apologized individually last month to all the users who had reverted my vandalism or were otherwise affected by it. This was not a simple matter: I trawled through page histories to figure out which IP addresses I had used, then went through each edit to make sure there was no permanent damage, and to identify who had fixed whatever problem I had caused. This process took more than an hour. I would not have done it if I were still involved with the dark side in any way. It's one thing to stop vandalizing; it's quite another thing to go to great lengths to repudiate everything I ever did in the past.
2. 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.
3. As I said in my answer to the last question, I feel strongly about personal integrity. When I say I haven't vandalized WP in the last five-plus months, I mean it. It's not worthwhile for me to lie about something as trivial (in the moral realm) as adminship. As to what happened in June, I rationalized that if it couldn't be traced to my main user account, then as far as WP was concerned "I" didn't do it. I no longer believe that, and I fully understand that such a stance runs counter to well-established policy.
4. Please don't checkuser me, but if you do it anyway, you will find that I occasionally edit without logging in (only good edits, I assure you), and that my sisters also have Wikipedia accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

8. You stated here that one of your reasons for requesting adminship was: "And of course there is the ulterior motive: everyone want to be come part of the Cabal. I know adminship does not confer special status, and I have never been confused about this point. Still, I have a sense that I'm not on level with Riana and WJBscribe and all the other admins I respect unless I can do the same things they can do."[3] Do you still feel you need to be an admin to "be on level" with these other editors, and is this one of your reasons for again seeking adminship? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I wrote that in June, when I was feeling rejected by the community (which, to some extent, was true at the time). I now feel that I've earned the respect of my peers for all the good work I do. I know that when I bring up an issue on the administrators' noticeboard, or AFD, or anywhere else, people want to cooperate with me because they trust me. I find it mildly annoying that I have to ask someone else to execute blocks and deletions, but I have been doing that for two years, and it looks like I will be doing that for a long time.

9. When your vandalism was discovered, this is part of what you said in your defense: "In some cases, I have made hours' worth of good edits, then I suddenly decide I can't stand Wikipedia anymore, and the only way to remove myself from its grasp is to vandalize it and demonstrate its worthlessness to myself. I learned quickly that vandalizing under my account was a no-no, so I vandalized under IP addresses, and occasionally under throwaway socks. (I do not have any active socks, nor have I engaged in more "traditional" sockpuppetry.) Then I realized that these could be traced to my main account using Checkuser if anyone got suspicious, so I started vandalizing wikis in other languages." [4] Again, why should we believe that you will not use the extra buttons to damage the project when you are feeling angry at the project? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I answered this question already. To summarize, I don't think I'll ever feel angry at the project to such an extent that I would try to ruin my own work or someone else's work, and there is far too much to lose by "going rogue." Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

10. You state above: "I created a number of alternate accounts to impersonate other users, during the period between February and June 2007. All of these accounts were indef-blocked within hours of their creation." I would like to know who you impersonated and why, and what you did to get indef-blocked. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I will not answer this question because I do not want the edits by the blocked accounts to become part of my official record. There were six accounts that I created. Four of them impersonated established good users, and two impersonated infamous vandals, all by having very similar usernames. All of these were blocked based on the username policy. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from xDanielx

11. What is your opinion on CAT:RECALL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I admire those administrators who are bold enough to submit themselves for recall via an RFC or whatever other process might be available. I believe that recall should continue to be optional, and should not be required for all administrators. This issue has been discussed in the recent RFC about this RFA process, and consensus seems to reject the suggestion of a mandatory administrator recall process. Like most people, I believe that arbitration is sufficient to deal with the occasional desysopping case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from JetLover

12 If a user makes a not-so-hot edit, but in good faith, should it deserve a {{uw-vandalism1}}? [5] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes. The "uw-vandalism1" template explicitly assumes good faith. Even if I were certain that the edit was made in good faith - and I am not certain of that - I was acting within policy to send a message to the user that his edit "appears" to be "unhelpful" and has been reverted. This user responded to me at the time, saying that the edits were legitimate, so I decided not to pursue the issue further.

There have been times where I've given something stronger than a first-level warning for a first offense. Sometimes this is justified if the vandalism was a page-blanking and the IP has been warned on many previous occasions. However, I regret the misunderstanding that occurred shortly after Josh Hancock tragically died this year. An anonymous editor updated the article, saying that Mr. Hancock had died in a car crash, and did not provide any sources. Since the Sinbad incident had recently occurred, and since I had personally seen vandalism on RC patrol where the vandal says the subject of the article is dead without providing a source, I assumed it was a hoax. I sent the editor a 3rd-level warning. I was told that Mr. Hancock really had died in a car crash, so I apologized on the talk page of that IP, and life moved on. I learned from that incident that sometimes, an apparently bad-faith edit is legitimate, and I think that's what may have happened in the more recent incident you asked about. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from --SB_Johnny | ^talk

13 As an administrator, one of your most important skills will be to determine when consensus is reached, and in some cases determining when consensus is obviously not going to be reached. With the comments below in mind, do you think keeping this RfA open right now is a likely path to consensus? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

• Links for Shalom: Shalom (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• See Shalom's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

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

[edit] Discussion

• Majoreditor, your opposing one of the best candidates we've ever had because of some stupid edits months ago. Shalom has loads of mainspace contributions and still has time to comment on almost every XFD or ANI post we've had. Find me an admin older than 90 days who hasn't vandalised the Mediawiki: namespace, or any other namespace for that matter--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix, you may find it hard to believe, but most admins have never been vandals. And yes, I admire Shalom's recent contributions and am willing to forgive his past transgressions. However, it will take time for Shalom to earn my trust. If he keeps up the solid performance we've seen from him during the second half of this year then I will be inclined to support a 2008 RfA. Majoreditor (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Shalom hasn't vandalised since the last RFA, there's no need for him/her to take flack for it now. Plus, I doubt Riana would have nominated if she thought there was a vandalism problem (Remember Robdubar?)--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to evaluate just what kind of vandalism Shalom did before I make a decision; can someone provide a link to the contribs pages of the vandal sock accounts (or maybe the IP address)? Yahel Guhan 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support - I think enough time has past since the google bomb incident and I've been impressed with the way you've handled earlier misdemeanors. I checked your contibs last week when I noticed you were wanting to run for adminship and I feel confident that you'll use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I have always found Shalom a very competent and helpful user. He has a lot of experience of Wikipedia's policies and processes and would clearly benefit from sysop tools. His long term dedication to this project should more than make up for his few mistakes in the past. I supported him last time and I do so again. In my opinion it is our loss that he has not been made an admin previously. WjBscribe 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   Per Kathryn below, do I read correctly that you think it's project's loss that someone wasn't made an admin while still vandalizing? I may have misread Kathryn (or you). --- tqbf 05:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Forgive and forget. Firm support per Ryan and WJBscribe. Maxim 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, with no reservations. Húsönd 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support – Actions are better than words, as they always say, and Shalom has acted very sensibly thus far. —Animum (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
6. I strongly support this nomination. My interactions with Shalom have been positive, and I have found him to be a skilled user with a high amount of knowledge of policy. Wikipedia will be benefiting greatly from Shalom being an administrator. Acalamari 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I think Shalom has learned from his past lives' mistakes and it is time. --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Who is perfect? The question is what happens after the mistakes. Shalom has proven that he will make a great admin. --Brewcrewer (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
9. I find honesty a very important aspect in a user, especially whey they are up for admin/bureaucratship, and Shalom has applied just that in the nomination statements above. No reason to not forget the past misdemeanours. Firm user overall. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:52, 20 November 2007 (GMT)
10. I trust Shalom sufficiently given his efforts since the incidents that led me to oppose last time. Daniel 03:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
11. I will support. Shalom means peace in Hebrew. New York Dreams (talk)
12. the_undertow ^talk 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Hell, my first edit was a NN speedy delete... :) Good solid user, great nom support, and I supported last time. Jmlk17 05:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong support. This is an intelligent, soft-spoken person, whose input I've come across numerous times without ever being disappointed. There is not a shadow of a doubt Shalom's value as an asset for Wikipedia would only increase by giving him the extra buttons. On a sidenote: Opposing Shalom over his commendable straightforwardness in admitting his early mistakes amounts to encouraging the practice of lies and deceit. |dorftrottel |talk 09:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Per my nom. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, per his moral courage in owning up to past mistakes. Unfortunately I doubt this request will pass, and ordinarily I wouldn't support someone with a history of sockpuppetry and vandalism. However, as stated below, he could easily have simply created a new account, worked for 5 months, and passed RfA without owning up to his past history. The fact that he chose to be honest shows strength of character, a trait which is all too rare on Wikipedia (where too many people just go with the flow, or say whatever they have to say in order to gain more power). So I am pleased to offer my token support. Walton^One 10:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Although I opposed last time. Per the courage highlighted by Walton, and the spirit of AGF. Pedro :  Chat  13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Support I believe everyone is able to change and this is no exception. He is a fine editor who have learned from his past mistakes. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Weak Support (switched from Weak Oppose). After reexamining everything for the last 10 minutes, I decided to assume good faith on this one. What made me change my mind was the fact that he didn't just toss the account out and start a new one. Instead he owned up to his past mistakes. But please, please, if ever you get that urge to "prove that Wikipedia is worthless", just reach down and pull the ethernet cable out of the back of your computer. Useight (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. I've found Shalom to be a good solid editor. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - Keep up the good work.   jj137 (Talk) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - I can't accept the opposition's arguments. This user's thoughtful and meaningful manner during the past couple of months has been excellent. And trying to prove the otherwise without diffs, is just plain not assuming good faith without reason. Rudget.talk 17:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Are you saying that someone's track record isn't a reason to assume they'll act in a similar manner again? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Depends on the trend, wouldn't you agree? In Shalom's case there seems to be a considerable trend towards improvement. |dorftrottel |talk 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    I agree. His improvement in actions and his civility (unless proved otherwise) is spotless. So, I don't see any reason apart from his past, to prejudge his current and future actions. Rudget.talk 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    With all due respect to the supporters, I find it hard to AGF in this RfA when the nom was actively, perhaps compulsively, committing vandalism just prior to the last two RfA's.20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    I understand. But, I'm still keeping my support. Rudget.talk 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

23. Very strong support Contributes to almost every area of wikipedia and has the experience to be a great admin--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Support *MindstormsKid* 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - Shalom is one of the few candidates (or even Admins) who recognizes the reality of the Cabal and the extreme inequality that is based on in-group Admin power on Wikipedia and not on positive contribution. Hopefully he will use this understanding and experience to reduce the unpleasantness for those of use who because we just want to write articles receive no support or help, and that he will not engage in endless circular debates which is the typical occupation of Admins, especially after the vandal fighting cop stuff becomes boring and they become "seniors editors". Mattisse 17:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: Perhaps the huge number of self-preoccupied, unhelpful, and harmful Admins all ready possessing the "bottons" should give voters pause as to the criteria they use to vote support/oppose. Of course, the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" philosophy recently voiced elsewhere will sent this suggestion down the tubes. I have noticed that once an editor starts voting Support frequently and receive the massive spam "Thank you" notices, one can be sure they are soon to be an admin. Mattisse 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You have been too honest. Mattisse 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Here's a living counter-example. |dorftrottel |talk 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

27. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Cautious support While I can understand the view that past betrayal of trust should make us look at this with a touch of distrust, I believe that a full and heartfelt confession wipes the slate clean and that makes me assume good faith. And WjBscribe below and Walton above make convincing arguments. But yes, like many opposers have mentioned, a clean record for a little longer would remove further doubt. - TwoOars (Rev) 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong support as one of the best admins around, with huge number of edits, lots of mainspace and XfD work, and a chastened heart. Disclosure: Shalom did nag me into being a sysop myself Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bearian. That said, he has clearly learned from his mistakes and has waited sufficient time to amend those errors. We need another old hand with the mop. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
30. ~ I think Shalom would make a great admin. They have shown skill in various admin areas, and I think we can all move on from his past edits, and look at the PRESENT. We should all realize that Shalom knows what he did wrong, and fixed it. I would trust Shalom with these tools. Thus, Support. I hope this ends out well for you. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Strong support A great editor, and Civil to everyone. Atomic Religione (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Slight support, after going bananas trying to decide between support and neutral. If the vandalism history were tied in with some kind of wiki-drama, I'd be very concerned, but it seems to be primarily humorous. Not the most appropriate uses of humor, granted, but since he doesn't seem to have any malicious motivations I'm confident that he wouldn't use admin tools to amplify disruptiveness. And given the recurring concerns that have been raised regarding this behavior, I anticipate that everyone will hold Shalom to an unusually high standard of editorial conduct, so the risk of harm through abuse of admin tools seems fairly low. Oh, and I should mention that he does a lot of great work in various areas of the wiki, and has always been quite civil in my experiences. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Support as per above. - --Street Scholar (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
34. Support very good and dedicated user, the vandalism incidents happened a long time ago. PeaceNT (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Absolutely not. Apologies, mate, but given your past silliness, I'm rather leery of supporting your request for extra buttons. Wikipedia has plenty of admins and will-be admins that have displayed their trustworthiness and passions for volunteering for the Wikimedia Foundation, and more specifically the English Wikipedia that we can do without someone who has engaged in ridiculous behaviour such as disparaging other's hard work and creating sockpuppets for that sole purpose. Obviously, I'm not willing to write anyone off completely, but I'm strongly opposed to you retaining extra buttons for the present. Again, apologies gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There were serious concerns raised during your last RfA, including vandalism incidents earlier this year. It will take more time for you to regain my confidence. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose per Majoreditor. NHRHS2010 talk 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Absolutely not, per the quotes and diffs in the optional questions I added above, and incidents like Shalom's March 2007 Devil's advocate IP vandalism that was hard to catch and disrupted links to 10 wikis, and which Shalom did not disclose in his last RfA, but later admitted to here after I found it. I was so disturbed by the findings in his last RfA that I saved diffs and watchlisted this page. He was so very determined to be an admin, so I knew this would come up. I do not believe he is a reformed vandal. He stated in his last RfA he was a reformed vandal and was found to be vandalising during the RfA and lying about it. This is stunning to me. I do not believe he has been honest above, or he would have disclosed more about his vandalism and lying rather than keeping his answers brief and making readers click to read what disclosures are there. This is the most opposed I have ever been to an RfA. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Kathryn. Your last RFA seemed genuine enough but you were up to no good all along. No reason to believe otherwise here. --Bloodzombie (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Sorry. I do believe that "rehabilitated vandals" can have a successful RfA, and I'd even support if I feel confident in the user. However, given your past, and the short amount of time since the last RfA, I am a bit hesitant for to support you at this time. Wait a while longer, and keep up the good work, as you are clearly on the right track. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose This editor has admitted to getting fed up with the project and subsequently vandalizing it. I see no reason to believe that this might not happen again in the future, and with the admin tools, the damage that could possibly be inflicted would be magnitudes worse than simple vandalism. While I believe that vandals can be reformed, a few months just isn't enough time to see that the user is truly reformed, as per my reasons for opposition. -MBK004 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   That was such a long time ago when he was very new to the project. |dorftrottel |talk 08:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose Plenty of people who've never dreamt of vandalising the project get turned down for adminship because they don't have enough experience or for, sometimes frankly trivial, infractions of policy. To admit someone with such a history of vandalism would be a slap in the face for them. "In some cases, I have made hours' worth of good edits, then I suddenly decide I can't stand Wikipedia anymore, and the only way to remove myself from its grasp is to vandalize it and demonstrate its worthlessness to myself. I learned quickly that vandalizing under my account was a no-no, so I vandalized under IP addresses, and occasionally under throwaway socks. (I do not have any active socks, nor have I engaged in more "traditional" sockpuppetry.) Then I realized that these could be traced to my main account using Checkuser if anyone got suspicious, so I started vandalizing wikis in other languages." This user would need to prove his good faith over a much longer period of time to convince me of his reliability. Nick mallory (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   May I ask (all the opposers really) what period of time you think is appropriate? Bear in mind that he could in the last 5 months have just decided to start a new account and at his activity level would have built up enough experience to pass RfA quite easily I think. Given that he has chosen instead to own up to his history, how long do you think needs to "prove his good faith"? WjBscribe 09:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   For at least as long as he vandalised would be my yardstick, others would have their own. Poachers may make good gamekeepers but they have to prove it. There's no benefit of the doubt here for me. If he'd started a new account and made no mention of his previous history, do you think he'd deserve to be an admin? Nick mallory (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   If he'd started a new account, do you think you would be opposing now? Face it, you're opposing him for being honest. This is so sad. |dorftrottel |talk 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   He was creating new accounts for strange purposes quite recently, wasn't he? ""I created a number of alternate accounts to impersonate other users, during the period between February and June 2007." How honest was that exactly? Even in this RfA he says ' I will not answer this question because I do not want the edits by the blocked accounts to become part of my official record. There were six accounts that I created. Four of them impersonated established good users, and two impersonated infamous vandals, all by having very similar usernames'. That's still trying to hide what he's done isn't it? The opposite of being honest. They ARE part of his 'official record' whether he likes it or not. It's not his decision whether or not they get counted. If he wanted to be completely honest then why's he refusing to say what he did? I find it strange that you take the moral high ground because my standards for adminship are higher than yours. Almost as strange as Shalom not wanting to put himself up for recall if this should pass. Nick mallory (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   My point was more a practical one. He would likely have been able to become an admin had he created the new account (whether or not he deserved to be). Lets bear in mind that others in Shalom's position may be watching this RfA with interest. Do we want to send out a message that its better to dump accounts and start afresh to avoid negative past history, or that people should own up to those mistakes and won't lose out by it? I do understand people's reluctance here, but I dislike the idea that someone faces harsher consequences for owning up than had they pursued a less honest route. WjBscribe 10:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   Let's also bear in mind that he lied [6] during his last RfA about what he was up to. I'm happy that he's turned over a new leaf, I'm just saying he has to keep up this pattern of behaviour for much longer if he's to convince me that he's to be trusted with the tools. You can argue with me as much as you like, it's not going to change my opinion. If this RfA goes through you might as well pass all of them on the nod and not bother vetting anyone anymore. Nick mallory (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but in my mind never. As someone's said above, Wikipedia has plenty of admins and would-be admins that would never, ever even imagine vandalising, that there really is no need to sysop-ify a past vandal, even if they really have changed. I'm sorry Shalom, but this is one of the consequences of your past behaviour. _TheIslander 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   Newcomer perspective: I agree with TheIslander. Why ever? This sound suspiciously like an appeal to Shalom's entitlement to be an admin. When am I entitled to get the mop? Plenty of people lose RfA's, with high edit counts, without ever having wasted the project's time with vandalism. --- tqbf 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   Next May, personally. (Struck, probably earlier but in honesty I don't know). If we're talking practical then the bottom line is that the candidate has chosen to walk this path, keep this account and attempt to regain the community's trust, warts-and-all. That was entirely optional, as is this process. That this RFA would result in some opposition is entirely predictable. Casting off the past actions which have been set before us just because the candidate could have started anew and got in would nullify exactly what the candidate has set out to achieve. If the trust is worth earning, let him earn it. If it isn't, why are we here?Someone another (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose per the reasons I cite in the above discussion. Sorry Shalom, but I really cannot support an ex-vandal, even if you have completely changed. _TheIslander 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Strong Oppose Though the past vandalism and the lying, as well as your comment about how you had to prove to yourself that Wikipedia was worthless are highly concerning, I'm actually less worried about that, which, as those in the Support section have said, was many months ago, and more worried about your XfD closures, specifically your understanding of Speedy Keep versus Snow Keep, and when these should and should not be used. GlassCobra 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Moving to strong oppose per answers to Kathryn's questions. Sorry, but this is really pretty disturbing. GlassCobra 06:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

11. Strong Oppose per Kathryn NicDhàna. Lying about one's ongoing vandalism during one's RfA is an automatic permanent disqualifier for adminship, in my view. If one is knowingly vandalizing while also asking for the mop, one represents the gravest possible danger to Wikipedia. Unless Kathryn is mistaken in her evidence, this is the most brazen RfA that I've ever seen. Xoloz (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Um... ongoing? |dorftrottel |talk 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, ongoing. Kathryn's evidence suggests that the editor was vandalizing even during his last RfA. Hiding past vandalism is terrible, but vandalizing while at RfA is inexcusable, and proof that one is completely untrustworthy. As to whether the editor is vandalizing at this moment, one cannot know, but past behavior suggests it is quite possible. Xoloz (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Ok, thanks for clarifying (wasn't sure if I maybe had missed anything bigger=current). |dorftrottel |talk 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose History demonstrates that this editor can not be trusted with the regular editing abilities, there is no reason at all to trust them with the potentially more damaging adminship tools. Recent AFD closures are also very problematic and I was planning on opposing this RfA even before I learned of the vandalism history. GRBerry 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Shalom hasn't vandalised since the last RFA, there's no need for him/her to take flack for it now. I also really doubt Riana would have nominated if she thought there was a vandalism problem, remember Robdubar?. That's also the snappiest oopose I've ever seen--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    With the regular editor tools, I'm willing to live with a "trust but verify" approach. Not so with the admin tools. And the AFD closures I've seen were poor enough to not want them doing more. We've seen supposedly reformed editors (even ArbComm thought so) that were actively repeating their prior bad history at the same time they were declared reformed. I have no doubt that Riana believes this editor has reformed - I just don't find it believable. GRBerry 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    (switched to Weak Support) Weak Oppose. I've seen this editor doing a lot of good work, but at this point, to me, it doesn't yet outweigh the past. However, it's getting closer. It's vandalizing during an RFA that is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I imagine I will support your next RFA, if nothing "interesting" happens between now and then. You'll make a good admin in the future. Useight (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose per gaillimh. Harland1 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I do believe that people can change and I think you personally can change. But to me, wisdom dictates a period of proving yourself first. How long? I do not know. But vandalism of the nature you wrought does not put your credibility at zero -- it puts it in negative numbers and requires a while to re-build. Your opinions about adminship and the list for the position is concerning too. I think you take a deep breath and come back later on. Sorry. JodyB _talk 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose - I can really understand how frustrating it must feel to have people oppose your RfA because of your past. And I'm sure you have tried to get over the "desire" to vandalise Wikipedia and turned over a new leaf. But, in my opinion, anyone who ever dreamt of damaging this project to release their frustration doesn't deserve to have extra buttons. You wrote: "...and the only way to remove myself from its grasp is to vandalize it [Wikipedia] and demonstrate its worthlessness to myself..." - That sort of thinking doesn't bode well. I'm sorry, I can't support you at this time. Scarian^Talk 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
16. No. Miranda 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    You oppose him for apologising? |dorftrottel |talk 19:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Worried about possibility of this happening due to past incidents. Miranda 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per concerns raised above. Devil's advocate IP vandalism was 10 days prior to RfA #1 and was not disclosed prior to RfA #2. That counters the "long time ago" argument. This in the setting of the nom'sadmittedly compulsive need to run amok. Additionally, has too recently had a problem applying speedy keep. I believe in assuming good faith and giving second chances when appropriate, but nom must give us more time to regain trust. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    That nom had recently committed vandalism at the time of RfA #2 boggles my mind. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose, I honestly do not believe this user can be trusted with the tools. Nikki311 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose, I don't think I can trust you due to your vandalism. I think that vandals can indeed become user who contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but I can see (per vandalism during last RFA) that you're not quite over your habits yet. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Editor admitted to getting fed up with the project once, no way does he need admin tools should that happen again. The answers to Optional questions from Kathryn NicDhàna played no little part in my decision. This was chilling [7] and asking not be checkusered because you edit logged out was strange. I am sorry, but I cannot trust this editor. --Sandahl 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose on the basis of answers to questions 7-10. Specifically, "I do not want the edits by the blocked accounts to become part of my official record," implies a willingness to conceal his actions. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose Simply not trustworthy. I do not see any evidence of "moral courage" here as some do, and I am not comfortable giving the tools to a vandal who has made duplicitous promises and expressions of regret before in an effort to get them. That, combined with diffs such as the latter one provided by DarkFalls showing an ignorance of core policy, leads me to oppose. VanTucky ^Talk 01:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose, reluctantly; an (ec) wiped out my reasoned response, but what it boiled down to was that it's too early yet for me to feel confident. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Weak Oppose I would like to see a little more time with no vandalism before supporting. Captain panda 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose Per all above. The user also created an article called "Brooklyn Brig" at AFC, but he never checked the external links and it turned out to be a copyvio. Not to mention this edit summary. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose A long-term-vandal-turned-admin? No thanks. If someone does a few questionable edits and gets warned and then straightens out forever, maybe I could let it slide. (I think we have an admin whose first few edits were testing how fast blanked pages would get restored - and whose next few edits were begging his way out of an indefblock). But vandalism and impersonation accounts over a period of more than a year?! No way, no how. It takes some work to get an IP blocked - not just a single silly joke edit - but he did it. How long should we wait? Until he has grown up for a few years. I don't believe one grows out of such ridiculous behavior in all of five months. He could have changed his username to hide the past vandalism? We find hidden vandals using checkuser all the time. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Reading through your answers made me really want to support this. A cursory look at your contribs also looked good. I do believe that people can change, and it is my feeling that you have. However, I have to oppose for a few reasons. Firstly, while I do not think you will vandalize at this time, I also believe that a grace period is nessasary and I do not feel that four or five months is long enough to instill condifence. As a result, I was leaning neutral. However, as I look closer at your contribs, I do not feel that you are ready to be an admin, your past aside. Your remarks on AfD are particulary troubling and reveal no understanding of policy. Other pieces, the odd edit summary for instance, also do not sit well with me. As a result, I have to oppose. I do encourage you to exhibit knowledge of deletion policy and civility in the future. Assuming such is done, I will have no problem supporting you at that time. SorryGuy 05:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Strong Oppose per the multitude of problems raised by Kathryn NicDhàna's questions, and this diff from Dlohcierekim. I do strongly believe in reforming vandals, and I would very much like to trust in Riana's judgement. However, I can not support a candidate who: was a vandal, was reformed once, then lied and vandalized during his first RfA, was reformed again, vandalized during RfA#2 (diff above), then was reformed a third time. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Your reputation precedes you, Shalom, and while I would love to vote support based on what I've seen of you, the diffs above hint you may, IMO, misuse the tools. If this RfA fails, please do not take it to heart. If you're angry/frustrated enough to contemplate vandalism, it's time to step back from the PC, not to dream of life in the cabal. Hell, cabal members get one years' worth of free "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICLE YOU #$%#%#?!?!" talk page messages. I am not sure those are good for you. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    As if to confirm what I said is gospel truth, this flew right in when I previewed my comment above. :-> Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

30. Strong oppose per all above. As a newcomer, I'm really kind of baffled as to why the project should bend over backwards to accommodate someone with a history of abuse. It's awesome that you can keep editing and contributing after vandalizing the project. It's creepy that you can potentially get the admin tools after doing it. Why are people apologizing about this? Is RfA about Shalom's well-being, or about the Wikipedia's? If the latter, isn't the decision pretty clear-cut? Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn. --- tqbf 20:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose You attacked a site in a way which I wouldn't even consider, no matter how much I needed to be away from it, that's not something I can just write off so soon. You've stated this is due to illness that was causing you problems, and I'm sorry that this was the case, as well as glad that you've recovered. Realistically though, how am I supposed to know what was really going through your head at the time? That it was really the case? Can't go there, don't want to go there, shouldn't have to go there, we're here to make an encyclopedia not invade each others' privacy. Only a matter of months ago your actions included harming this project, repeatedly, wasting not only your own time but that of other contributors and doing your little bit to make WP look like an unreliable heap of junk. It's admirable that you've taken the time to apologize, and your work since is a credit to you and a boon for WP, but personally I'd like to see a longer period of stability before you're given the mop. That's not because I want you to be punished, it's because I'm not psychic.Someone another (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose I don't believe that a user that vandalised Wikipedia as little as five months ago is even close to ready for the tools. Admins have to be trusted and respected members of the community, and a former vandal will need more than five months to earn that trust.NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose - I lack confidence to trust this user with increased tools based on his past history. I think it takes more time to build up trust - this is not yet ancient history. I note the apologies. I would suggest that there is plenty of scope to contribute meaningfully to the project without being an admin and I recommend continuing to do that.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose. I've often seen you working hard, but the acts of vandalism are a very serious matter. While I don't believe you would go hogwild in the tools, I admit I'm a little uncomfortable handing you the mop when confronted with the fact that you vandalized quite recently. bibliomaniac15 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Strong Oppose per Kathryn NicDhàna and Dlohcierekim. A long history of vandalism and sockpuppetry, as recent as three months ago, does not leave me with a sense of confidence. The compulsion to vandalize does not seem to me to be something one can just get over and stop. The fact that this vandalism was occurring during the previous RfA tells me that it isn't controllable. Lara❤Love 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
36. Going to have to oppose this one. Candidate was a spammer and vandal for a year and a half; only less than five months of non-vandal participation. Three RfAs have been submitted by candidate, one two while still vandalising the project. Suddenly quit spamming and vandalising after over a year of damage and repeatedly submit RfAs? That isn't the way that this should work at all. Apologies. Heather (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose I am not thinking this user is admin material Alexfusco5 03:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Oppose it's going to be one hell of a long time before you regain the community's trust. -Pumpmeup 08:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    Uh, what are you actually opposing for? Acalamari 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    I think that's obvious. Lara❤Love 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

39. Oppose - This user was once a vandal, and there's no knowing that the user won't return to being one; I think admins should be users who had never been anything but good faith users. Od Mishehu 08:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose per answers to questions eleven and twelve. If I read eleven correctly, Shalom states that he would be unwilling to list himself at CAT:AOR. If this is not the case, I may be willing to reconsider my position. Note that I would not have joined the debate if I wasn't open to changing my mind, so I don't feel that this is piling-on. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 08:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
41. Temp Oppose I think give it another month or 2. Work on some of the advice given throughout the other opposes, then try again. --businessman332211 (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose for evasiveness and dishonesty (as discussed by Kathryn NicDhàna) rather than vandalism. RfA is, in my opinion, a matter of trustworthiness rather than knowledge (after all, one can always learn more about specific policy before making any particular decision). I would support a future RfA if it is demonstrated that this user has committed no vandalism, and been completely honest, during this RfA. Sadly, a failed-but-honest RfA is the only means I can think of for this applicant to demonstrate their trustworthiness. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong Oppose Appreciate his offer to help out as an admin unfortunately I feel it should be declined due to his past repeated vandalism. Being an admin is "no big deal" I hear, I can vouch that being a low level user is not bothersome any way. I feel his offer to help out as an admin should not be accepted because of the possible risk involved. Having one extra good admin is a small step forward for wikipedia, having one bad admin could be a larger step backwards. Therefore I feel we should decline no matter how many good edits he makes in the future and no matter how many renominations, not as a punishment but simply because there are so many more editors with a clean history who would like to be admins. However thanks for offering to help Shalom. Jackaranga (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    Note that my above worry is based more on the sockpuppets and impersonation than on vandalism/jokes, or beginner errors. Jackaranga (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

44. Strong Oppose - With all due respect, I fail to see one single benefit of having you as an admin. SWik78 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Oppose per Kathryn. I have no confidence in this user's trustworthiness or integrity. --BelovedFreak 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. I don't find some of your comments at AfD to be particularly productive or indicative of your knowledge of our deletion policy (for example, [8], [9], [10], and [11]), and some of your recent articles are unreferenced; WP:V is a core policy, FYI. However, you're a great person, a hard worker, and excellent to work with, regardless of what you may have done in the past. So, this is a neutral right now. מזל טוב! --Agüeybaná (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   Usually, when I write "Delete per nom," it's after I've read the nomination and the article. Most of the unreferenced article I've written recently are translations from the Hebrew Wikipedia where the subject is a settlement in Israel. (The Hebrew version has external links in a template format, but I have not recreated the template in English.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   yea, that was a pretty funny joke. Yahel Guhan 07:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral, with much respect for the candidate and his body of work. The vandalism is troubling, but I believe the candidate is unlikely to vandalize again. I think the candidate is one of the rare editors who starts out as an unproductive editor with some vandalism, and then becomes a productive contributor to the project. Doesn't happen often. My main concern is the statement regarding the closure of articles for deletion. The candidate advocates the use of WP:SNOW in cases when the debate is "nearly unanimous". In my mind, so long as the dissenting editors have valid arguments, the debate is an uphill battle which would not fall under the auspices of WP:SNOW. The main reason for having a 5 day debate is specifically to permit editors who don't happen to be editing right then to have an opportunity to provide input into the decision to remove content from the encyclopedia. I've seen articles nominated and deleted in the span of a weekend, only to be overturned at DRV and relisted by Wednesday. I'm concerned that WP:SNOW is one of several everyday tools in the candidate's toolkit, when it should be the old screwdriver hanging on the wall, taken down once in a long while when circumstances merit. I intend to further consider Shalom and his candidacy, but (regretfully) cannot offer my support at this time. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Mixed Feelings I dunno... I'm glad to see that your trying to get past your old vandalism ways, but I don't think that your actions during your past RFA were honorable. I'm really on the fence right now. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
4. I truly believe that the incidents before the RfA have been addressed, because I trust Riana to have exempliary decision-making skills before nominating an editor for adminship (I hope :p). However, I am a little concerned by some of the comments made after the RfA. "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." is an excellent example of this. From the comments given there, I arrived at two conclusions. One is that you're trying to make a point about the lack of warnings given when reverting vandalism; the other more omnious one being that you feel that vandalizing Wikipedia is okay if you didn't get blocked or a warning on your talk page. On the whole, I feel the idea of creating the RfA review is wrong. Although many will disagree, I felt, in my opinion, the accusatory tone was unnecessary and does not assume good faith. But that's just my opinion and no others. More recently, I also felt a concern over this comment in which you stated a user sandbox cannot be protected. Please take a look at the protection policy, which states that "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for ... User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user." From the evidence given above, I am unwilling to support, but I will not oppose as I do believe that the "vandalism" edits has been sorted out. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral, leaning to Oppose Im am glad that you are heading away from your old vandalism course, which is something that is certainly worth a compliment! In fact, your the only editor i have seen so far that became productive after an unproductive start. However, i still think that "Forgiven but not Forgotten" applies here. I have to say that i am rather wary about giving a past vandal the tools that could be used to cause a lot of mayhem when not used correctly. I wont vote oppose here, as you are obviously improving, but still i would rather see you as a good, productive editor, then as an administrator. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral, leaning to Oppose per Excirial above. His words sum up my thoughts perfectly. User:Krator (t c) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral, leaning towards Support - there really has to be redemption at some point, and one transgression (or even a handful) shouldn't stain one's wikicareer for life. That's nonsense. I applaud this candidate's honesty in coming clean about all this. but support would be just a little early right now. I just don't feel comfortable given Kathryn's evidence. Having said that, if this candidate kept things up as they are and ran again in a few months, I would certainly support - Alison ^❤ 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral the candidate has done some good work, but the incidents of vandalism are too troubling and too recent for me to support, especially as I was one of the people who had to revert him and that he was not entirely truthful during his last RfA. Hut 8.5 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I've seen this user around; he communicates well and would probably not abuse the admin tools now. But I cannot support an ex-vandal. Sorry but I need further proof that you would not abuse the admin tools. This can be done by editing Wikipedia in the manner you are currently doing so. I cannot support after this amount of time. Jack?! 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Hard-core neutral for this RfA. This guy's very good and has definitely learned from his past mistakes, but hhe is a former vandal, and it wasn't too long ago when he vandalized the encyclopedia. We may need more time, but Shalom is too great to oppose. Maser ^(Talk!) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.