Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YechielMan 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] YechielMan

Voice your opinion (20/25/7); Withdrawn by candidate at 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan (talk · contribs) - I have edited Wikipedia consistently from January until now. During the past five months, I have involved myself with various cleanup and maintenance tasks in both articles and project-space. I have also written a few articles, which I have listed on my user page.

My previous request, two months ago, can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YechielMan. Two major concerns were raised then. First, I had created a Google bomb within Wikipedia to associate Richard Joel with an unsavory word. Second, given this history, I did not have experience to earn the trust of the community. I cannot undo the past, though others have undone it for me; and the spamming incident occurred within my first twelve logged-in edits ever. Since the first RFA, I have made multiple requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, and I have patrolled user pages to weed out spam and WP:NOT#MYSPACE material. Of the last four thousand contribs at Special:Contributions/YechielMan, you might find one or two which could be considered vandalism.

I eagerly await your comments, and I thank you in advance for your participation. YechielMan 00:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am familiar with all XFDs, but I will be most comfortable closing AFD, MFD, and RFD. I will also sort through the pile of candidates for speedy deletion. I am most interested in CSD G11, G12, A7, and R1, but I will eventually include images and other pages in my purview. Less frequently I may patrol the noticeboards, including WP:AIV, WP:AN3, and WP:UAA, and block or warn users as appropriate. To paraphrase the old joke: I'm from Wikipedia, and I'm here to help.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best article, by far, is endgame tablebase. It has unsuccessfully stood for WP:GA and WP:FA, but it represents my best work and my most visible contribution to the encyclopedia. I've written about a dozen other original articles, such as Shaare Zedek Medical Center and List of chess periodicals. However, I spend most of my time on administrative tasks: evaluating AFDs, categorizing pages, patrolling new pages, correcting obvious spelling errors, and so forth. Ultimately, these smaller contributions, taken as a whole, may be more valuable.
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: I have been in minor conflicts with User:Kevin Murray and User:FrozenPurpleCube. In the latter case, I closed a complex AFD regarding chess openings as a speedy keep because the score was 12 to 1 in favor of not deleting it. FrozenPurpleCube, the nominator, undid my closure because the existence of merge votes precluded a speedy keep, and I was not an admin. I defended my reasoning but ultimately accepted that I had interpreted policy too liberally. I made a couple of other early AFD closures shortly afterward that were also challenged, but these did not cause much discussion or stress.
Regarding the second question, it takes a lot of pressure to rattle me when I'm sitting at my computer and can literally walk away. I don't encourage you to throw insults at me, but I am calm and mature enough to ignore such trivialities.

Optional addendum from YechielMan

4. Regarding WP:IAR:
A. It doesn't stand for "I Am Right." Rather, it enables me to bypass process and save time and effort to reach an obvious result. Thus, I support a liberal interpretation of the snowball clause, though (except as IAR may apply) it is not policy. For another example, I have seen some articles that are clearly speedy-delete material but cannot be associated with any CSD. I can WP:PROD them, or can sometimes stretch the boundaries of G1 (nonsense) or A7 (nonnotable). Sometimes I'll write my own explanation into the template, with an implicit reliance on IAR. Similarly, I have closed two AFDs (including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hormensis) as "speedy redirect" even though there is no such concept. If it's obvious that a redirect is called for (as it was in those two cases), I'll boldly do it and cite IAR explicitly. The common thread among these examples is that a reasonable person should not find the end result controversial; in other words, IAR allows you to use common sense to replace process. YechielMan 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Ryan Postlethwaite

5. You state in your nomination statement that there may be one or two of you last 4,000 edit that could be considered vandalism, could you elaborate?
A. I had in mind the following two edits, which I labeled as a joke in my edit summary in both cases:
  1. User:Nesher/ORBCOTW - diff. User:Rachack quickly reverted it, and I resolved the issue by starting a TFD discussion which resulted in keep.
  2. Miserable failure - diff. User:Zzuuzz reverted the redirect to its correct target. I discovered recently that others had been pulling the same prank, so I requested full protection and received it from User:Krimpet. YechielMan 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Kathryn NicDhàna

6. In your previous RfA, you said that this blog post explained your reasons for your googlebombing the wiki and your vandalizing the E.T. The Extraterrestrial article. Does that blog post still represent your views?
A. The most salient portion of the cited blog post is as follows:

I decided to googlebomb President Joel's official YU biography with the epithet "kofeir," which is Hebrew for "heretic." This may seem sinister, but it is important to remember that I never said he was a kofeir, and I didn't really imply it either merely by setting up a few obscure links from blogs and Wikipedia. Yet I found it amusing that, within 4 to 6 weeks, Google picked up the links and started to return the biography as its top result for "YU kofeir."

The question is a little misleading. The above indicates my rationale for attempting the Google bomb: I considered it a joke, and I thought it was funny and harmless. Time cannot change what my original motivation was.
However, if you ask me what I think of it now, I have changed my understanding. First of all, I no longer think of Google bombs as an innocent prank even if nobody else knows about them. The "nigritude ultramarine" contest was innocuous, but linking "Richard Joel" to "kofeir" amounts to saying that Richard Joel is a kofeir. Although it was a secret for many weeks, the words of Ecclesiastes 10:20 ring true:

Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter. (King James translation, copied from Wikisource)

Second, the relevant edits, along with other vandalism in my past, subverts Wikipedia, at least until someone corrects the error. In 2005 and 2006, I considered Wikipedia mainly as a tool for me to use, so if I derived personal benefit by ruining other people's work, I knew it was wrong on some level, but somehow it didn't matter to me. I still use Wikipedia to look up information, but now my main orientation is that of a contributor. As a contributor, I care about improving the encyclopedia even for areas that do not interest me, so I have no incentive to vandalize, and indeed I've given more than a hundred warnings to users after reverting their edits on RC patrol. YechielMan 03:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Optional question from Trumpetband

7. When is it okay to block a user indefinitely?
A. There are two separate cases to consider. One case, as described in WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks, is for an inexperienced user who has a disqualified username (see WP:UAA) or whose edits show a pattern of vandalism with no interest in reforming (the so-called VOA-block). The other case is for a more experienced editor, who has made some positive contributions but has also caused substantial disruption. A decision to indef-block him or her would usually need to proceed through WP:CSN or ArbCom. Of course, it is conventional never to indef-block IP addresses. YechielMan 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/YechielMan Requests for adminship/YechielMan 2

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/YechielMan before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

Suport with no hesitation, an excellent editor who will do fine with the mop. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Support withdrawn pending clarifition from Q5. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Changed to oppose. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Moral support - as far as I can tell he has not repeated the same mistakes that haunted his last RFA, and I have seen nothing but good contributions from him. Arkyan • (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support Ryan Postlethwaites comments are a little bit of a worry but I've seen nothing but good editing from YechielMan apart from that below. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)(Changed to oppose)
  2. Moral support - Solid work in the userspace in removing vanity and spam pages. Suggest withdrawal, though. MER-C 09:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Moral support You're doing quality work. Keep doing it, and we'll be happy to promote you. -- Y not? 11:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak actual and strong moral support. Fun edits (with the possible exception of talk space) are inappropriate, no question. But Yechielman is doing a lot of fine work, too. —AldeBaer 12:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Semi-moral support I'd seen nothing but positive things from this candidate until looking at the evidence in this RFA... but I think there's hope. Buckle down, be careful, be serious... and you should do fine here in a few months. Was going to go neutral but I'll support because this is a self-nom, due to the oppose below for that reason. Self-noms are good. --W.marsh 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. My view on the joke edits is the same as AldeBaer's, but I'd like to note that YechielMan has no other problems with respect to the standard issues that most people consider at every RfA (a record of good contributions, interactions with other users, participation in administrative tasks, experience and understanding of policies and guidelines, and so on). The googlebombing took place in Dec. 2005 - 1.5 years ago. That's a rather long time and, to me, the reply to Q6 shows both understanding and regret. In order to keep my comment short, I'll copy a statement from the previous RfA that effectively sums up my personal view: "My experience with Yechiel is that he makes thoughtful comments, and good contributions to the encyclopedia." I think the overall effect of sysopping him would be positive. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support: Obviously this RfA isn't going anywhere, but I worry about Wikipedia becoming so humorless and moralistic that a single joke vandalism permanently disqualifies an otherwise sensible and qualified editor from adminship. The level of crystalline perfection demanded of admin candidates will go a long way to ensure that within a year or two, the personnel crunch will become acute.  RGTraynor  15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Moral Support I have come across your edits a number of times and I like your style. I think that you will make a great admin, in the not too distant future. Keep up the good work and the good humor! —Gaff ταλκ 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. 2 joke edits in 2 years of good editing can be forgiven, particularly as we need more admins. My impression (call it a hunch) is that YechielMan is trustworthy and would not abuse the admin tools. WaltonAssistance! 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. support I was against it before I was for it. No seriously I agree with Walton Black Harry 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I have seen nothing but good work YechielMan. He is a committed user who participates widely in the project and has all the relevant experience. Two joke edits (one outside the mainspace where casual users will def not have noticed, the other an unwise political statement to an obscure redirect that was quickly reverted) do not persuade me he will make a bad sysop. I think the lesson is learnt and the rest of his contributions are overwhelmingly positve. WjBscribe 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I was at neutral, but I decided to go ahead and support. I've had nothing but good relations and contact with Yechiel, and while he did make mistakes in the past, who hasn't? As WJB said, he has learned his lesson, and is a positive contributor now. I enjoy his edits, and I look forward to seeing him some more in the future. Jmlk17 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support The edit to {{ORBCOTW}} was not vandalism: he posted a fact that's more useful than harmful to people stumbling on talk pages; the template was disrupting talk pages; and it could very well have been deleted. The google bombing was months ago and there's no reason to believe that he will do that again. Improved vandals can do as much good as righteous new accounts; it's not necessary to force the process again in a few months by mingling with other users to "earn" nominations from them. –Pomte 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support what WJBscribe said. Acalamari 21:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support: Per Acalamari and the fact of his kidney donation. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    I am sorry if I am trolling on this RFA, but what does a kidney donation have to do with an editor's competence of becoming an administrator? Miranda 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    See the relevant discussion (the link provided) on the talk page. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Adminship is not a trophy. Miranda 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Moral support Candidate's heart is in the right place and he's shown a willingness to get involved in maintenance. I do understand the concerns of the opposers but I think YechielMan's promotion would have a positive net effect. If not now, then a few months down the road. Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Moral support. I agree. We need more admins, and what everybody else said is true as well. ~EdBoy[c] 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support dude, you crack me up --Infrangible 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - a great editor, IMO. Despite the issues about vandalism, I still think he'll be fine admin. G1ggy! Review me! 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - Has proven he can deadly serious when required and I have no doubt that he'll abuse the tools. Dfrg.msc 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    So you're saying that you support him because he will abuse admin tools? --Dark Falls talk 09:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I'm sorry, but your answers do not relieve my worries - whether it was a joke or not, you've vandalised wikipedia within the last 5 days. I can't support someone to gain the tools that disrupts wikipedia to have a laugh. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Could you please double-check that? The old version in the diff was from 28 May 2006, and the newer one from 15 April 2007. That still may be too recent, but I want to make sure you have the facts straight. YechielMan 03:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, you are right about the date, but the fact that you did it anyway and have done so this year still worries me. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Ryan Postlethwaite, and the answer to Question 6: I believe the relevant part of the nominees blog post is this: "I decided to attack him in a more secretive way. I didn't really have a motive, except that I was feeling moody and wanted to make mischief. ... I congratulated myself on a job well done, and looked for an opportunity to reveal my secret." I cannot support giving the tools to someone who vandalizes the 'pedia, nor who thinks that the sentiments expressed in that quote are a valid excuse for vandalizing. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose due to recent vandalism, your quote about secretive attacking, and the fact that you were self-nominated Black Harry 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per concerns stated above, and also your answer to question 4. You say you would invoke IAR to "stretch the boundaries" of CSD A7 (which alone sounds like a recipe for disaster), recently you had a CSD A7 tag rejected on Edward Behr (food writer) which clearly did assert notability by citing news sources, and a google search of his name brought up Penguin UK and Amazon pages for the named book as the top two results. I'm sorry to say all this, as I've seen you on AfD debates and you always seem perfectly sensible, but admins who are slap happy with CSD A7 cause issues. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    That was an error in pattern recognition, and I failed to do the Google test as a safety check. Given the amount of deletion-related work I do, it's inevitable that I might make a mistake on a borderline case. YechielMan 06:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. I can't support a person who had recently, deliberately vandalised Wikipedia. It shows a lack of commitment to the project, and can be harmful, especially in the Miserable failure redirect, which many Republicans may view as libel. --Dark Falls talk 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. Incidentally, Political Google bombs contained an unsourced statement that many Democrats may view as libel. —AldeBaer 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just so everybody is clear, it is very, very, very hard to libel a major public figure. Calling Bush (or Kerry) a "miserable failure" is a political statement: it violates NPOV, so it doesn't belong on WP, but it is very far from libelous. Xoloz 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Firm oppose per Zeibura, who properly observes that attempts to construe our criteria for speedy deletion other than strictly are most pernicious (and, to be sure, demonstrate exceedingly poor judgment and an inability to appreciate consensus, inasmuch as it is plain that a consensus of the community exists generally only for narrow the use of speedy deletion. As our good friend Y has often had occasion to observe, further, overzealous speedying serves not only to remove content that might be encyclopedic (or at least, in some situations, material about the encyclopedic value of which community discussion should be useful) but also to dissuade new good-faith editors from partaking of the project. On the whole, even as I'm not nearly as concerned as others about the vandalism issues, I cannot conclude with any degree of certainty that the net effect on the project of Yechiel's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 05:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose When do we start handing out the tools to confirmed recent vandals? I'd suggest a withdrawal of this RfA. Pedro |  Chat  08:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Vandalism is not acceptable, even more so when you personally attack people in that vandalism. Matthew 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Disruption of the mainspace to have 'fun' and make 'jokes' is not on. Not even on April 1. Never. I cannot trust this user anywhere near the tools ("oh, boy, deleting the main page would be fun..."), and I doubt I will for a long time yet. Daniel 10:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per recent disruption and answers to the Questions. Cheers, Lanky TALK 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, Per Ryan Postlethwaite. --Mschel 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I came here to support, as I like the the fellow; but IAR-expansion of CSD A7 can cause loads of headaches. Any candidate who is unaware of that in making his RfA statements is unready for the mop. Xoloz 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I cannot support someone who recently is making joke edits for someone else to clean up. Such conduct is an absolute deal breaker for me. JodyB talk 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong oppose(Changed from support to Strong oppose) The hidden message you added saying you have no intentions of withdrawing this is silly, a bureaucrat will close this RfA per WP:SNOW, the refusal to withdraw this RfA shows inability to see others point of view, it would look better if you withrew this rather than watching it fail - unfortunately. The vandalism and joke edits show a lack of maturity, if you had the tols what would you do next, block every user of delete the Main Page? The Sunshine Man 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose – I like that you have a sense of humour, but you have not exercised it in ways that benefit Wikipedia (or Google, for that matter). I feel your "jokes" show a lack of maturity. Sorry. You might want to look into other things you can do for Wikipedia – You may be persistent, but this RfA is doing even more poorly than your last. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I don't feel that an Admin should have ever vandalised Wikipedia. Alot of Vandalism may be considered a 'joke' by the Vandals I don't find it funny with people we don't know. Neither do I find it funny with you. — Taggard (Complain) 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong oppose I don't like to oppose RFAs and I especially don't like to pile on. However, after reading this RFA, I think that the message has not been sent clearly enough and so I add my opinion here to emphasize the message. 38% support is too high for someone who has recently vandalized. Not withdrawing suggests a willful disrespect for community consensus. This is not a good trait for a future admin. I have no doubt that YechielMan will eventually be a fine admin. But not this month. Maybe not even this year. --Richard 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - Per Ryanposthwaite. Wait a while, keep making constructive edits, and then try again.--Danaman5 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - at least a year with clean hands before trying again. HeartofaDog 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose at this time. Penchant for vandalism is a worrying trait in an admin, although seems like a good candidate in most other respects. Carom 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. There's no reason to believe that a reformed vandal can't become an administrator, particularly if it has been a long time since his last act of vandalism, particularly if his reason for reforming is that he's realised the value of the project, but kept his sense of humour. I don't consider his past vandalism relevant to the question of whether he should be an admin, because he is clearly no longer a vandal. However, he doesn't strike me as possessing that quality which is so vital for administrators, which is Clue; nor does he seem interested in getting it. His comments about blocking and speedy deletion show me that he doesn't fully understand what those of us who delete and block do, and why. His AfD nomination of Edward Behr (inappropriate speedy tagging mentioned above) shows me that he's not ashamed to show himself as petty and insecure — for those wondering, this is a Bad Thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    I really don't have a Clue what was wrong with my answer to number 7. I honestly ask any admin who is reading this to point out my mistake because I'm pretty darn sure I got it right. Yes, I forgot to mention sockpuppets and checkuser, but the most common indefblock is the VOA-block, and it's pretty clear when to apply it.
    For my comment on speedy deletion: yes, it was a dumb thing to write, and it might have been informative to ask how I would apply the policy before assuming that I would speedy delete an article that had survived twelve AFDs. I can recall at least a half dozen occasions on newpage patrol where I've mulled over an article and decided to PROD it, only to see that someone had already tagged it db-bio.
    The specific example I had in mind when I wrote that it's okay to speedy an article without a CSD was a case where I saw a title Adobeacrobatreader (sic) and two sentences about the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Not knowing what else to do, I think I tagged it speedy A7, though of course the Acrobat is a notable software product. The admin deleted it as a "duplicate" according to the deletion log. Yes, it could have waited five days in PROD, but I didn't see the point. YechielMan 10:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Why didn't you just change it to a redirect to Adobe Acrobat Reader? Waltonalternate account 09:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. I wasn't going to bother, but the whining on the admin noticeboard about how "people never forgive" etc etc sealed it. Neil ╦ 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per the logic of Kathryn NicDhàna. Argos'Dad 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose That vandlism is too recent. This user does not demonstrate maturity or self-restraint. Not someone who can be trusted with the tools. --YbborTalk 01:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose on the basis of his apparent philosophy of "liberal" use of WP:IAR and the "snowball clause" for speedy deletions. I am concerned that this user does not fully appreciate the concept of WP:TIND, and prefers unilateral action to discussion in disputes which he feels are clear-cut (though others subsequently disagreed with him). These are tolerable traits in an editor, but unacceptable for an admin. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose You vandalized. It's over. RuneWiki777 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral You do good work here, but the "jokes" show a serious lack of commitment and I would never like to see it in an admin. Sorry. —Anas talk? 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - You would have my support, except for the fact that you vandalized. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I'm no stranger to the whole "joke" thing, so I'm readily willing to forgive and forget, but I'd like to see a few more months of straight constructive editing first. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral the joke edits are unfortunate, but it would appear YechielMan understands they were inappropriate. I'm a bit more concerned though about the WP:IAR answer in relation to WP:CSD and liberal usage of WP:SNOW. CSD is kind of dicey because as an admin you are the only one looking at the article and making a decision. You have to be very careful about what you are deleting and I don't like to see much in the way of IAR particularly in the case of stretching A7... there is either an assertion of notability or there is not. WP:SNOW should not be used liberally; that invariably leads to DRV, and more drama than we need. WP:SNOW should be reserved for "slam dunk" situations. That is why we have prod and AfD. YechielMan does quite a bit of very good work here, so I'm certainly not going to oppose, but I can't really support right now either.--Isotope23 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral Oh man, I wanted to support so badly, as my dealings with Yechiel have always been warm and insightful. My only issue is the vandalism issue(s). I understand everyone can have a bad day, or make a mistake, but sometimes it's better to just go punch your buddy in the arm and have a cigarette :). Yechiel, if you keep up the obviously hard work, stay serious (not too serious, as a smile helps), and stay on track, I will be among the first to support your next Rfa. Sorry about this time though :(. Jmlk17 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Dang...after further consideration, changing to support. Jmlk17 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Can't decide! Pending answer to optional question. I do worry about the fact that because of 2 joke edits we automatically disqualify someone... on the other hand, I see other editor's point. --Trumpetband 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral I'd very much like to support, however, there is alot raised by the opposers that has to be dealt with first. Too close to pick it, sorry. Dfrg.msc 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed to support. Dfrg.msc 08:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral I came here to support because I've seen some of his good contributions to AfD's, but I am disappointed by the answers YechielMan gives to the questions, and I am unsure about his liberal interpretation of IAR as a reason to delete articles. I also don't know what to make of the instance of vandalism from a few months ago. nadav (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Is this account a bizarre sockpuppet or is it a "plot" against YechielMan? This diff tipped me off to the page, but I still don't know if the two users are actually one in the same. Antelan talk 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    It appears YechielMan created the alternate account on May 6,[1] and then on May 16 acknowledged he was using both accounts, as well as making IP edits.[2] What concerns me somewhat about the content of the page are statements like this: "I am drafting this page under my alternate account in order to avoid exposure during the run of my RFA."[3] Again we have the secrecy issue, along with various other statements on the page about how everything would have gone fine with his RfAs if no one knew about his fifteen instances of vandalism (under the YechielMan account). I find this attitude troubling, along with what seem to be vindictive feelings on his part towards those of us who have opposed his RfA, and a sense of entitlement about deserving to be an admin. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:45, 4 June 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.