Jump to content

User talk:Shalom Yechiel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shalom Yechiel (talk | contribs) at 17:50, 20 October 2008 (→‎Epilogue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shalom also means "goodbye"

I am leaving English Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. After I relocate in August, I will create a new username.

Wikipedia is causing me more stress than it's worth. After discussing my options by email correspondence with three administrators this week, I have decided to leave.

I created a rant about 60 kilobytes long on my computer to complain about how unfairly the community treated me. I will not post it. That's not how I wish to be remembered.

I'd like you to read one article I've written or improved during the last two and a half years. Pick any article from my list or the toolserver's list. That's how I wish to be remembered.

Shalom also means "goodbye." I offer best wishes to everyone who made editing here such a pleasant and fulfilling experience. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue

I am writing to say goodbye to those of you who still watchlist my talk page, and to offer a chance for you to wish me well. One of the hardest things about moving on from a relationship is forgetting the painful memories and the lost hopes associated with that relationship. I accomplished many achievements here, but I never helped the project as an administrator (though I performed administrative tasks without the tool-set); I never submitted a featured article (though I did submit a good article at Talk:Endgame tablebase); and I never completed coverage of towns and villages in Israel (though I did create more than 100 articles about these places). I am proud of what I did, broadly speaking, and for my mistakes and failures, I am trying to retain whatever lessons I can apply to life outside the four walls of Wikipedia.

Last year I spent an extraordinary amount of time on Wikipedia. Without revealing too much personal information, I'll explain that I was working freelance part-time but I had most of my waking hours to spend at my discretion, and I donated that time to the project. Two months ago I relocated and began graduate school in the chemistry department of a major research university on the east coast of the United States. (You can read my admission essay at User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Wikipedia got me into graduate school.) My teaching and learning responsibilities do not permit anything more than a cursory interest in Wikipedia, and sometimes not even that. Last month I created an anonymous user account for editing and creating articles related to chemistry.

I wish to leave my thoughts on various issues that I expect will engage the community's attention during the next months and years.

Honesty is the best policy

Wikipedia:Honesty is marked as an essay, not even a guideline. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Honesty where someone had the gumption to suggest Wikipedians should abide by such a basic ethical principle. "Honesty is the best policy," according to a popular saying, and honesty should be required of all users on Wikipedia. Making baseless accusations against another user is unacceptable. Misrepresenting your real-world credentials is unacceptable. Misrepresenting the content or intent of sources is unacceptable. Wikipedia:Honesty should be at least a behavioral guideline on par with Wikipedia:Civility.

RFA reform

I support the efforts of Gazimoff and others in the RFA review. I have spent many hours thinking about what might discourage users from engaging in the false statements, assumptions of bad faith, and borderline personal attacks that pushed my temper over the edge in July. I prefer not to discuss my particular case anymore, but I recognize it as a wider problem. I perceive that RFA has become a toxic environment, one where false statements, assumptions of bad faith, and borderline personal attacks are tolerated as the price of vetting candidates for the stressful situations that some administrators may face. Standards of conduct from RFA commenters need to improve: users who can maintain neutrality in a particular RFA discussion should watch for comments that cross the line and not be shy about challenging them, and if necessary, asking a bureaucrat to remove or disregard them.

Administrator accountability