User talk:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/RFA review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In all honesty, I still don't see why it didn't go through. Perhaps bias from the previous nom was the reason for all the opposes. It is possible for people to change. People shouldn't oppose because previous opposes sounded right. They should oppose based off their own opinions. ~EdBoy[c] 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My Opinion

Originally I opposed you nom due to vandalism concerns. I changed my mind and supported you after realizing that out of the 6100+ edits you made, only two were vandalism. That meant that 99.97% of your edits were done in good faith. But some users want admins to have perfectly clean records. I also think some users had problems with your interpretation of WP:IAR, but I must admit that I interpret it the same way as you. My advice to you is that you wait 3 or 4 months before you reapply again, and it may help to have someone else nominate you. Good Luck. BH (Talk) 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, I have a feeling that the only people who will discuss anything significant will be those who supported you, so you may want to consider an editor review. BH (Talk) 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record I would also like to know why YechielMan wants to be an editor so much? BH (Talk)

[edit] Opinion

Although I did not !vote in your RfA, I was planning to. I probably would have gone for weak support, I can forgive and forget but the Miserable failure -> George Bush was particularly inappropriate imo. I would say to have the best chance of future success you should wait 4-6 months. If you hadn't admitted your "vandalism" in your introduction, chances are it wouldn't have been noticed since it was 2 in 6000! You probably should be an admin, GDonato (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple question

I think the answer is quite pertinent, though ... why do you want to be an admin so badly? Neil ╦ 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Who doesn't want to become an admin? RuneWiki777 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of people. That's why there even a userbox for editors who do not wish to become admins.Pedro |  Chat  07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Since a high percentage of those who apply are passing and only a tiny fraction of users are admins, one might conclude that most people either don't know how to become admins, don't want to be admins or don't think they would qualify.
That said, I think it's a legitimate question. This page and the whole "wounded and unjustly treated" whining suggest that adminship is very important to YechielMan. This, I'm sorry to say, is further evidence that YechielMan is not ready for adminship. When we say that "adminship should be no big deal", we don't just mean that it shouldn't be hard to get adminship. To some extent, we also mean that becoming an admin should be no big deal to those who are not admins.

Given the potential damage that an admin could do, I would like to be sure that there would be 0% mischief. No, not even 2 out of 4000.

--Richard 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the most pertinent question here. Why do you need the tools? Pedro |  Chat  07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know why Yechiel wants to have the sysop tools so badly as his answer will suggest what he understands an admin's role to be. Neil ╦ 10:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Carom

I voted oppose solely on the basis of previous vandalism. While most of this is, in fact, distant history, the edit to Miserable failure was fairly recent. It might seem innocuous, but given a) a larger pattern of similar edits to that page from anon vandals, and b) a history of vandalism and vandalism-related activities by the candidate, it is difficult to say "this user has absolutely, positively changed his ways." It's one thing to have fun - and make no mistake, Wikipedia should be fun - but that fun should not impair the encyclopedia in any way, however minor it might seem. I think the advice to keep your nose clean for a few months is sound. and I currently have no other reservations about your candidacy. The information presented below leads me to believe that you may still be vandalising wikipedia, albeit not with this account. If this is the case, it is an issue that must be resolved prior to any further request for adminship. I think it would be advisable to edit only with this account in future. Editing anonymously, or making substantive contributions with another account are actions unlikely to inspire confidence, and I would highly recommend that you discontinue them. Carom 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Pomte

I am no longer certain that disclosing my mistakes will be in my best interest.

It is however in the best interest of the RfA process, though not necessarily resulting in the most benefit for the project overall. However, if you were really a consequentialist, you would create a new account (I do not endorse this action) instead of continuing with this one.

So when Ryan Postlethwaite asked me to explain, I could have responded, "Why don't you search through 4,000 contribs to find a needle in a haystack?"

Irrelevant. What you could have said is not what you said, and that attitude would have raised more suspicions.

Some of the opposing comments were overly strict and you could question whether they actually interpreted that your first example of {{ORBCOTW}} as very minor, and that your acts of vandalism are not that recent or prominent compared to your other contributions. In RfAs, overall time seems to be a lot more important than the actual time taken to make edits, i.e. you could play the game and do thousands of fast easy non-controversial edits to coast through, or you could spend time writing content, arguing about policy etc. and the outcome will be the same. People shouldn't calculate your dedication solely by time (or edits), but some fair balance of each relative to the type of contributions you make.

I'm sure the atmosphere will change if you try again in a few (don't ask me how many) months. This review does not really help your cause in the eyes of the opposers, as you may imagine. Is your lack of tools hindering you from contributing in a way that you need it sooner rather than later? You could always write some FAs in the mean time. –Pomte 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

This very page may well get you oppose votes on future RfAs. --Deskana (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of being quite so "clueless" as to why you were denied, I would re-read your most recent RFA with an attitude of trying to assume that the oppose votes are making valid points rather than invalid ones. Take on less of an "injured" attitude and more of a learning attitude. When you "get" why people opposed, perhaps you will have taken the first step to learning what needs to change.
--Richard 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from previous version of this page

The following posts were made on the previous version of this page, concerning the draft version of this... essay(?). Both of the following comments were made while YechielMan's 2nd RfA was in progress. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments were requested. I advise totally frankly, as I always do, and as I would advise anyone

  1. Do not ask for the change in rules, for the first 100 edits. I think that this would be seen as relaxing AfD procedure excessively. I can imagine what some eds will say, for they try very hard to concoct unlikely situations where it will be harmful, and nothing will stop them.
  2. Don't ask for the probation. Don't ask for personal special treatment, even to your own disadvantage. The very asking for it will be remembered and resented.
    2a. Just say that you will try again when you can demonstrate a longer period of good behavior. Withdraw and say it right now. Simply go up again in 4 months. There will be many new people by then. and everything will be 4 months further back. When you go up, say you will be open to recall.
  3. There is legitimate concern about the harm an admin can do by loopy behavior, as this has actually happened at least twice this year in a major way, and a few times in lesser ways. There were no warning signs for any of them.
  4. In the meantime be conservative, and follow the mood--it's the only way to be effective here. The mood at Speedy is getting to be to follow the rules literally and narrowly. some of my speedies have been declined as not meeting the category. Check the discussions on the CSD talk page to see.
  5. AfD, imho, is getting really erratic. Watch carefully what you nominate--if in doubt ask someone in the field. Always give reasons--longer than you usually give.
  6. And of course revert vandalism frequently -- I suggest NewPages, going back 2000 or 3000 counts--there's a lot that gets by the first day, and help is badly needed later, One of the experienced admins suggested it to me a few months back, & I do it when I have the time. What you do will be visible, as a bonus effect.

As for the events--I find it amazing that you weren't warned back in 05. Personally i would have blocked you for a month, for using WP to advance an off WP cause by illegitimate means to the possible discredit of the project. It does not help that the cause you were trying to do was both esoteric and of no obvious great moral value--I am aware of the conflict in values, but most people will see it as a college kid prank to annoy the president. The blanking and the insertion of nonsense--It does not help that as vandalism goes, both were on the primitive end. . It oddly does not help that they occurred at 6-month intervals--it will be taken to mean unpredictable fits of silliness -- See no.3 above. Best wishes DGG 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relative seriousness of vandalism is not determined by warnings or lack thereof

I think the only reason you were not warned (and blocked) for some of your vandalism is the fact that a great deal of vandalism is reverted by newer users who either don't know how to warn and report vandals, or who don't understand that it is important to do so. In other cases, the person reverting the vandalism will simply not take the time to warn, because they are in a hurry or overwhelmed. The fact that you were not warned and blocked was, in my opinion, not a judgment that your page-blankings, personal attacks and insertions of nonsense were not serious, but rather a symptom of how overloaded many editors get when it comes to dealing with vandalism.

In your RfA you seemed to imply that your vandalism was not that big a deal because others cleaned it up for you: "...the relevant edits, along with other vandalism in my past, subverts Wikipedia, at least until someone corrects the error."[1] This seems contemptuous to me, and disrespectful of the work that vandal-fighters do. I am stunned that you would say this as you also do some vandal-fighting yourself. This makes me concerned that you may see vandal fighting more as combat, a game, or something you need to do to balance things out enough to succeed at an RfA, rather than protection of the project. I think changing the rules to go easier on vandals is the last thing that Wikipedia needs. Vandalism is not only harmful to the project for the misinformation it spreads, but also for the time it wastes when we could be writing articles. This latter concerns me more than the temporary misinformation because, frankly, I am more concerned with editor burnout right now than with the temporary presence of infantile screeds on pages.

I've seen you respond to concerns like these with arguments based on ratios: that only a miniscule amount of your total edits have been vandalism. I see this through an entirely different framework: The presence of any vandalism, even if only a small ratio of total edits, reflect an attitude problem, a, I'm sorry to say, character problem. That, imho, is the problem, not a matter of whether the good work outweighs the bad. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My advice

Next time, don't mention the I vandalized thing. You might want to edit a 1000 thousand more times, so your disruptive edits are well hidden. It's what I would do. RuneWiki777 22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You should make a fancy signature for yourself. Some people rate others according to their sigs. People like others that have fancy ones. Makes yours flashy, then apply again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs) }

After checking the IP YechielMan used to edit his userpages, and after he commented that he'd been doing a lot of IP edits while "on wikibreak", it appears he was trying to hide his recent vandalism. Unless others with his same sense of humour are using his IP, 69.201.182.76 (talk · contribs), he vandalized as recently as last week, in addition to the vandalism that was brought up in his RfA. He was warned for "joke" edits and vandalism on the talk page of his IP: [2]. In particular, the Devil's Advocate vandalism is quite harmful, as it disrupted links to 10 pages, on a variety of wikis, and initially went undiscovered. The placing of speedy deletes on pages for a joke, one of them a featured article, did not result in deletions,[3] [4], and arguably one of them, Vandalism (band) is nn, but his reasons really weren't funny, wasted the time of good editors, and one really worries what would have happened to some of those pages were he granted the admin tools. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is troubling. I recommend you to stop editing from IPs and socks, so there aren't even more potential reasons for opposition. The justification at User:Placeholder account doesn't make sense: "I like to edit anonymously... so I created this account." Pretending to be on a Wikibreak is no good either. –Pomte 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Runewiki777, the recommendation not to mention the vandalism thing is a terrible idea. The "I vandalized" thing is now recorded for posterity in the RFA. Far better to say... "OK, that was a long time ago and I vow never to vandalize in any way, not even for a harmless joke". If you can get the "RFA mafia" to believe you truly mean that, you will be a lot close to getting the sysop bit. There are, however, other issues that you need to deal with such as CSD, IAR and SNOW. The oppose votes were not uniformly about the vandalism.
--Richard 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes and whatnot

I didn't actually vote on your RfA, but I'll comment anyway. I hate to use reasoning here that I use with my kids, but there is a point you don't seem to get here, or don't want to get. There is a major difference between an innocent "mistake" (when you do something wrong accidentally) and an act that you knew was incorrect and inappropriate but did anyway. I haven't yet seen you take ownership of the fact that you didn't slip on a banana peel (a mistake), you actually put the banana peel down for other people to slip on. Most of the people who opposed you did so because you did the latter, and the latter is much more serious.

Innocent mistakes are the result of ignorance or clumsiness, which can be corrected with time and training. But egregious acts are the result of a personality trait that causes one to think, "Haha, won't THIS be funny?" and that is way harder to correct.

It is impossible to quantify what would cause you to lose that trait. It certainly isn't X edits or X months. Maybe you've lost it already, or maybe you'll never lose it. We'll never really know, and so your RfA's will probably never pass. --Spike Wilbury 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean hands

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

Before everything, ignore RuneWiki's advice above.

I meant by my comment, harsh as it is, what most other people are also telling you, that you need a long period - although OK, a full literal year may be excessive, given the quite short half-life of the average Wiki-editor - in which you play absolutely straight down the line and according to the book. If you do that, you may regain trust. To be honest, however, you may not. In any case, if you try to bury previous incidents you can be sure that someone will unbury them and trip you up with them. I'm really sorry to say so, but at this point, if you still want to be an admin, you may be better off starting again with another user name (and another IP address, by the look of it) - it may also be quicker. I wish you well in whtever decision you make. HeartofaDog 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion

(edit conflict) I didn't vote, but I believe that a user should have no history of vandalism. Being a "newbie" is no excuse for vandalizing. I never vandalized. True, I didn't know the policy either at first, and, in my first article or two, I improperly cited references and capitalized section titles.

What was your motivation behind vandalizing in the first place? I don't understand how being new justifies the vandalism.

Also, what changed you, our of curiosity?

Please note that I do see that you are a great editor, but I wouldn't support anyone for adminship that had any history of vandalism. It may not be fair, but, unfortunately, that's how many of us feel. If we didn't vandalize, as we knew it was wrong, why did you?

If there is a way to gain the trust of the community, it might be years. Good luck, though, and Happy Wikying! hmwithtalk 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Pascal.Tesson

I have to agree with Deskana that ironically this very page might get you opposes the next time around. Whether that's fair or not is in many ways irrelevant and one just has to accept the reality of RfA. There's a bitterness in your tone which I definitely understand but also suggest you get rid of. Not that I want to play wise old man here but I had an experience not unlike yours with my first RfA. Its failure caught me by surprise and I still think I was not treated fairly (and as it turns out, I was in particular the victim of a couple of sockpuppet votes). I almost gave up on Wikipedia at the time because of it until I remembered that I did not need others' opinion to know I'd been doing good work around here and to know I enjoyed that work. I also realized that I needed to take a break from battlefields like policy pages and XfDs because they were wearing me down and weren't much fun anymore. I got into other things like categorization and helping out at WP:FAC which tend to be more friendly atmospheres. I also started participating more regularly in RfA debates to point out frivolous opposes of the kind I'd gotten (not enough image experience, has a divisive userbox, vandalized a page a year ago, had the nerve to disagree with me on debate X, does not have email enabled, has voted "per somebody" one too many times, does not have a WikiProject endorsement and so on). When I did run again a couple of weeks ago I actually got over a 100 supports without opposition. I firmly believe that this is not because I've become a better editor but simply because I got lucky. There are still editors out there who think I suck (cough sir nick cough), they just did not participate this time and for that I can only thank my good fortune because a few editors would probably have joined them. As much as we'd like RfA to be a perfect process it has all the imperfections of a random process and there's just no sense in being bitter about it. Of course, I was very much bitter after my first RfA but in retrospect I can't say it did me much good. I did support your RfA, I think you'd be a plus as an admin but you should remember that first and foremost you're a plus as an editor, a dedicated contributor, a regular participant in crucial deletion debates, etc. My bit of friendly advice: forget your failed RfA, forget the criticism, forget grudges, forget about this very page. If you don't you'll lose the ability to enjoy editing Wikipedia. If you do, I can assure you that someone will eventually wonder "wait, I opposed this guy's RfA?". Best, Pascal.Tesson 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan, Pascal wise words he speaks. Maybe you should consider {{db-userreq}}ing these pages, maybe shift to a lower gear or take a short wikibreak if necessary and then return in full force to resume your outstanding history of contribution. —AldeBaer 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I endorse the idea of getting rid of this page although the other option is to close the discussion and say "I appreciate the input and will take on board the various suggestions." The important thing is to dispel the whininess that you express on the User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review page. It will only serve as evidence for those who might look to oppose you next time around.
--Richard 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments regarding your RfA

As you've asked, so shall I respond. I opposed based on two things:

1) The recent vandalism

No, it wasn't much. In fact, it was one joke edit amongst hundreds of good edits... And it wasn't even all THAT recent. However, one joke edit does bring to mind the question of what you might do as a joke with the admin tools. Yes, all of the edits in question have since been reverted, but it was the attitude you took which prompted me to oppose. You were never truly contrite and you never admitted that what you'd done was flat-out wrong. The community doesn't give a whit whether or not you thought the edit was harmless... The fact is you vandalized the wiki.

2) Answers to the questions

The answers to Q4 in relation to WP:IAR was concerning. The implication here was that you'd delete anything which might possibly qualify under the speedy deletion criteria if you could stretch the meaning enough, which is a terrible attitude to have. When in doubt, it's always better to have a few extra eyes on the article, which can turn it from a borderline CSD stub into a respectable article. TO state it more bluntly... If it doesn't qualify, you shouldn't be bringing WP:IAR into it so that you can delete it.

WP:IAR can cause a debacle due to one editor who chooses to eschew process in favor of expedience. It won't end well. WP:IAR is an important policy which is designed to help the encyclopedia, but deleting everything which YOU don't feel belongs here doesn't necessarily help the encyclopedia. If you're deleting ten stubs and only one could be improved by an editor who might care enough to improve it through exposure via WP:XfD, the net result is an article lost which could have worked. As we're in the business of writing and editing articles here on Wikipedia, if an admin's net effect on the project would be a diminishing of the current number of viable articles, I can't conclude that giving that person the tools would not be a good thing. Cheers, Lanky TALK 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Lanky's statement above. IAR should only be invoked in totally non-controversial circumstances - it shouldn't be used to extend the CSD criteria, or stretch the boundaries of admin power. Although I supported you, this certainly is a concern. As to the joke edits, I don't have an issue with those, as I think you can be trusted overall (hence my support). Waltonalternate account 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, my main oppose was based on the issues I had with the WP:IAR interpretation. The joke edits were just the icing on the cake, as it were. They made me uncomfortable enough to mention, but I probably would not have opposed based solely on them. Cheers, Lanky TALK 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments regarding your RFA

Hello there YechielMan. I was one of the editors who voted neutral. I have to things to say about your RFAs. First the fact that you attempted to have another RFA so soon after having your first, shows impatience. Not a good sign in a admin. Second though granted you do have over 6000 edits, once you have vandalized different rules apply, at least in my opinion. Many editors get adminship after 12000, and here you are trying to get adminshp after 6000! My advice to you, is to become more active in vandal fighting. Wait untill you have around 16000 edits, and then try again. Perhaps someone might even nom you by then. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to disparage another editor's opinion but this fixation on numbers is a sign of editcountitis. It's not the quantity, it's the quality. The Random Editor's point about vandalism changing things is on the mark, though. One vandalism puts all the rest into question. I don't think you ned to wait for 12,000 or 16,000. I hope The Random Editor was just using hyperbole to ridicule editcountitis. I think letting some time pass (3,6, 12 months?) until your next RFA is the way to go. Don't obsess about edit count, though. Anything about 1500-2000 edits is pretty good and 3000 is surely enough.
--Richard 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with The Random Editor's count standards - I had about 4500 edits at the time of my second (successful) RfA, and I still have fewer edits than YechielMan. However, I would agree that waiting for a third-party nomination would be a good idea. Not that there's anything wrong with self-noms, but being nominated by another editor is more likely to show that the community thinks you're ready. Waltonalternate account 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Sorry it's taken so long to post here. I've been waiting until I have more than just a few seconds, as I wanted to responded in a very full manner.

Oh wow. OK, where do I start?

I'll start with a "my goodness, you've had a hard time in RfA". I still can't quite believe that my own RfA wasn't an ordeal... you've gone through the grinder twice. So accept my sympathy, even if that doesn't actually make you feel any better.

As you know from my !vote in your first RfA, I am a big believer that leopards can change their spots. However, such leopards need to bear in mind two things:

  1. ) people have become used to seeing them as leopards
  2. ) if they get speckled by mud, people might perceive them as putting the spots back on.

With this in mind, your language and behaviour especially around the RfA pages needed to be super thought-through. By indicating in your second RfA that "Of the last four thousand contribs at Special:Contributions/YechielMan, you might find one or two which could be considered vandalism." you invited a pile on of opposes, which indeed happened... that was a shame.

If an edit of yours could conceivably have been perceived as "vandalism" as a good faith editor, you'd (no doubt) have corrected the edit and apologised. Which makes it not vandalism, but a mistake. We all make mistakes and indeed many editors get support !votes at RfA for demonstrating that they learn from making mistakes.

So, the fact that you yourself referred to some edits you'd (relatively) recently made as "vandalism" (rather than, say, "edits made in poor judgement") made it hard to support you. It's semantics, but your own comments at RfA carry enormous weight - especially if they cast you in a negative light.

I would like to add that your response to failed RfA2 (ie these pages) is both a hit and a miss. I gave you huge credit for wanting to explore better the reasons for your failure, but I'm afraid that I perceived the main page (over there <-) as a bit of a rant about how unfair it all is... when you really brought the problems on your own head. Sadly, that's unlikely to help much at your next RfA.

So, here's some well-meaning advice.

Short term

  1. ) Consider a change of username. I'm not sure why, but it'd be like drawing a line under old behaviours. This is not hiding from previous indiscretions, but acknowledging a new start
  2. ) Join the admin training at the Virtual Classroom

Moving forward

  1. ) Continue your useful and thoughtful editing of Wikipedia
  2. ) At all times, behave in an adminlike manner

In a few months

  1. ) Undergo editor review and request your most vociferous opposers to join in (My reading of WP:CANVASS indicates that so long as you don't harangue people who are disinterested, you're not canvassing by inviting people to editor review). Engage in the editor review in a true mood of finding out your mistakes and wishing to improve. If you go in just because you're looking for a green light to go to RfA, your attitude is wrong - and you probably don't deserve adminship in my book.

With all of the above under your belt, you'll be well equipped at a future RfA to stand tall and tell the world (and demonstrate) that you've moved from bad to misunderstood to good. Good candidates get supported at RfA. When I last looked Cat:CSD was filling up...

I hope that you find this helpful and I bid you good luck.

Cheers --Dweller 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse almost all of Dweller's well-written comments above. I have just one comment to make. If you do change your username, I would advise you at RFA time to tell people that you "used to be YechielMan" and refer to your first two RFAs. I think there are differing opinions about changing your username but I can't see people reacting well to finding out or even suspecting that User:XYZ used to be User:YechielMan but has changed his username for reasons which will be considered suspicious by some. If you do it the way I propose, people can say "OK, that was YechielMan but this is the NewGuy who exhibits none of the problems that YechielMan did".
--Richard 15:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, absolutely! Sorry I didn't specify that, but I agree wholeheartedly. And in RfA3, ensure you're up front and deal honestly, swiftly and humbly with the issues that caused the failures of RfAs 1 and 2. --Dweller 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YechielMan responds

Hello everyone. I am overwhelmed by the responses from all of you because I was not expecting so much support and constructive criticism. In order to learn from the past, and from the discussion here, I will respond in a great deal of detail. (Thanks for the reminder, Neil.)

  • Neil asked, why do I wish to become an admin, and why do I feel so strongly about it? That's an excellent question. I think it's not so terribly different from asking a couple why they will get married, or have gotten married -- there are virtuous and ulterior motives working together in every case. Among the virtuous motives are the fact that I have taken an interest in maintenance work and helping other users. I hardly ever write articles from scratch anymore. Most of what I do is to monitor XFDs, including to close XFDs where a speedy keep is warranted, and to categorize uncategorized pages, and to wikify pages that need to be formatted, and so forth. Since so much of my work, both in mainspace and in userspace, relates directly with deletion, it would save other admins work if I could delete things myself. 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.
  • I independently decided to change username before reading the suggestion here. Starting next week, assuming the usurpation goes through, I will be User:Shalom.
  • Regarding WP:IAR: I don't have a detailed response, but I have taken the comments to heart. At first I almost never used WP:PROD because I was always afraid that someone would delete the prod and my tagging would be useless. (I don't like to use my watchlist.) Now I've stopped worrying about that, and I use PROD even in some cases where a CSD might apply.
  • Regarding time horizons for reapplying at RFA: there seem to be a minority of users who believe "never" is the right time. The rest of you are saying a few months. As a practical matter, that means I should reapply in a few months and hope the "never" crowd amounts to fewer than 20% of voters. I may try around November, the two-year anniversary of my first edit, and I will not self-nominate.
  • Regarding sockpuppetry: I've made other (since reverted) vandalism edits which I have not yet disclosed. I will not disclose them unless people prefer that over simply letting it slide into the past. (My wording of "Special:Contributions/YechielMan" in the RFA was meant to exclude these edits.) I'd like a sense of whether anyone really wants to know. As a reformative step, I will disable "Placeholder account" and will limit myself to one account.
  • Regarding character issues, I can best explain the contradictory editing patterns by citing my bipolar disorder. 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. I'm sure you're all wondering, "How could I apply for adminship under such circumstances?" The answer is, I never intended to fool around with MediaWiki or otherwise damage Wikipedia in the capacity of an admin. It was conceivable that I would continue to wear multiple hats, deleting pages as an admin and vandalizing the Japanese Wikipedia as an anon. But I was never going to vandalize Wikipedia as an admin. Yes, I knew that was wrong, but temptation got the better of me.
If you all consider this a character flaw, I can only tell you that I have been intreatment for my mental illness for several months, and I am continuing there. If for X number of months I maintain a clean record, it should indicate that the relevant character problems have resolved themselves.
  • Despite my openness, I realize that there is nothing I can do to placate everyone. As I said above, I hope that those who refuse to forgive are in the minority. I also hope that those who doubt my sincerity in apologizing for the Google bombing are in the minority. I'm not going to disappear and start over as an unrelated identity; I feel that's dishonest. I may decide to sharply reduce my activity here, but that's really unrelated to the discussion, and more a function of my growing real-life responsibilities.

Cheers. YechielMan 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time heals wounds

Hi there. Take a serious 2-month break before your next RFA, keep doing good stuff, apologize to the people you pissed off, and don't take this so seriosuly. You are a fine editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)