Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jehochman

Jehochman

Voice your opinion (talk page) (12/0/0); Scheduled to end 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman (talk · contribs) - I would like to present Mr Jonathan Hochman for adminship consideration. Jonathan registered his account on 22 March 2005, and has been editing regularly since August 2005. He has more than 6400 edits, well spread throughout all the main spaces (mainspace: 2304, article talk: 461, Wikipedia: 1463, Wikipedia talk: 369). A web designer and computer consultant in real life, Jonathan has contributed extensively in his area of expertise, and in other areas, with significant contributions to Internet marketing, Search engine marketing, Social media optimization, Wi-Fi, U-853, Gamma ray burst, Radio-frequency identification and Leona Helmsley. He has also earned Durova's Triple Crown Barnstar by writing a Feature Article (Search engine optimization), a Good Article (Atlantic City), ad a DYK (Mahalo.com). He has also made a significant contribution to Sheerness, which subsequently became a Feature Article.

Jonathan first came to my attention through his hard work helping to manage and organise the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, where he has made over 230 edits. He has also contributed to many discussions on ANI where he has racked up in excess of 120 edits and assisted with investigations on BLP Noticeboard, with an additional 25 edits on that board. On a more personal level, Jonathan was a great help to me when I responded to a COIN report and was then targeted by a sockpuppet of a community banned editor. Jonathan was very helpful and supportive and I feel that with the admin tools, he would be a fantastic support to other admins and editors alike. Having access to delete/undelete, protect/unprotect and block/unblock would also aid his work on COIN and enable him to become a far more effective COIN investigator, allowing him to work unhindered when admin actions are needed. Jonathan has also participated in policy discussions at Blocking policy and CSN, spearheading changes to the way proposals for community bans and other sanctions are managed. He has also participated in AfD where he has demonstrated a sound understanding of deletion policy (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Jonathan has also helped on RC patrol, fighting vandals and spammers (e.g. [8], [9], [10]); he warns users appropriately, escalating through the full range warning templates appropriately (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and he is a very good communicator who has no problems communicating one-on-one when templates are not appropriate (eg. [16]). He has fourteen edits to AIV, however, this is a deceptively low figure because he often asks admins directly when he needs assistance from someone with a mop, rather than reporting cases on the noticeboard (e.g. [17], [18], [19]). I sincerely believe that Jonathan has shown that he can be trusted with the tools and that he has the skills and knowledge necessary to make an excellent administrator and so I would like to ask the community to support Jehochman's request for adminship. Sarah 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for your confidence in me. I accept. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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: In particular, I would continue my work at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biography of Living Persons and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to help resolve open cases. WP:COIN tends to generate a lot of demands for administrative attention: articles for deletion, pages that need temporary protection from edit wars and anonymous vandals, and promotional usernames that need to be blocked. With access to the tools I would be better equipped to investigate cases because I'd be able to see deleted articles. I'd also help with administrative backlogs (rather than adding to them as I often do now), and I'd mentor new users and users having difficulties.

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

A: I took a poorly sourced article that was subject to content disputes, Search engine optimization, and brought it up to good article standards. With help from others, in particular User:AnonEMouse and User:SandyGeorgia, I further improved the article to featured status and it ran on the home page July 2, 2007. I am also pleased with the research and copy editing I've done on U-853 and Gamma ray burst, though these articles still need work to reach high standards. In a recent arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, I worked with both sides to try to resolve a longstanding dispute in the Scientology articles.

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: A while back I thought a user was an incorrigible spammer because they failed to heed my repeated warnings, so I requested a block. They were blocked and then unblocked, which made me upset. I tracked down the unblocking admin, User:Eagle 101, on IRC and he patiently explained that blocking users isn't our goal, and that it's much more satisfying to help them adjust. The user has turned into a productive editor. Getting angry with people doesn't help much. I've learned the importance of trying to be constructive and find common ground whenever possible. Even when requesting a siteban for a long term disruptive editor, I tried to be polite to them and explain what they would need to do to get themselves unbanned. Blocking and banning aren't as good as convincing an editor to follow site standards.

Question from WjBscribe

4: Following a link from your userpage I see that your company [20] is involved in SEO and internet marketing. Commentators have increasingly been discussing the use such firms have put Wikipedia to in terms of enhancing their client's profiles on the web. How do you combine your role in that industry with your editing here while avoiding any conflicts of interest?

A:I've been an outspoken critic of link spammers and those who would abuse Wikipedia. There's a big misconception that all SEOs are spammers and jerks. Some of us aren't. Here's a summary of my Wikipedia and SEO presentation given to 500 SEOs in New York this year. Here's a review of my SEO Reputation Problem talk in San Jose this August. My business involves helping people build better websites and promote them through legitimate means. I strongly discourage all forms of astroturfing (phony, COI contributions) because I've come to realize that this sort of marketing can trigger very negative publicity when discovered. Professional marketers can't afford to take those risks.

General comments

• See Jehochman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Jehochman: Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jehochman before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. A highly experienced user who knows what he's doing. No reason not to trust him with the admin tools. Useight 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support. I have a confession to make: I wikistalked Jehochman for a while. Back when I was very active at WikiProject Spam, someone there suggested we keep an eye on him. The insinuation was that he might be a spammer who was trying to ingratiate himself with Wikipedia editors by temporarily playing by the rules. A.B. came to his defense, and assured us that he was actually a straight shooter. The issue was dropped, but I was still dubious. So, over the next six months or so, I watched every single edit Jehochman made, waiting to see if he would slip up and show his true colors. Let me assure you, I could not have been more wrong. Jehochman is one of the most civil, mature, and knowledgeable editors around. He consistently and fairly applies sound policy interpretations, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he will be one of our most valuable and respected administrators. -- Satori Son 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - a good contribution history and I particularly like the answer to question 3. Dealing with spammers is a tedious task, and dealing with potential conflicts of interest is a sensitive one. Matching admin tools with Jehochman's experience and reliability in these areas will be a genuine asset. Euryalus 00:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible support. Jehochman is one of the finest up-and-coming Wikipedians at this website, period. His article space contributions are excellent and he volunteers in areas such as WP:COIN where sysops are in short supply. I've watched him and worked with him under some of the toughest field conditions this site can offer: he's unflappable. Jehochman's talent at site investigations is superb and he brings calm diligence to every endeavor. He has participated in some of the site's most contentious disputes (such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS) and concluded nearly every instance with the respect of all parties. I would be hard pressed to imagine a better candidate for adminship. Give this man an industrial-sized mop. Durova^Charge! 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. I know Jehochman through his work at WP:COIN and he is one of the mainstays of that noticeboard. In general it is not so easy to find admins willing to take an interest in specific COI issues, if blocks or other intervention are needed, due to the complexities. (Durova is among the happy few admins who are frequently seen at COIN). Since Jehochman is familiar with the type of issues people encounter there, if he became an admin, it would be a big help. EdJohnston 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support as nominator. Sarah 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Precisely the type of person we want as an admin. Lots of consistent editing over the past few months. Always uses an edit summary. Helps edit articles and does the housekeeping necessary for the project. My only concern, and it's a minor one, is that the applicant hasn't gotten into a lot of controversial issues to really show their skills in building consensus, but I see indications of current and future success. I rarely support applicants, but this one gets wholehearted support from me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Stronger than possible support. Dealing with those who would subvert Wikipedia to marketing ends is a big problem that's getting bigger. What better way to deal with it than to have someone on our side who knows the ins-and-outs of the business? The fact that Jonathan has been working with Scientology-related articles, and yet by all appearances has managed to retain his sanity, faculties, and good nature, speaks volumes of his temperament. Raymond Arritt 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
9. I was half-way through writing up a nomination myself, but Sarah covered all bases that I did, so I won't bore people with redundancies. Strong support. Daniel 00:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I do indeed approve. It's really nice to see people who want to work in the more tedious aspects of admin work. Hell yes :). Jmlk17 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Clearly a substantial editor, who can be trusted with the tools. Phgao 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
12. I do have some concerns here, mainly regarding the nominator; VirtualSteve turned out to a good administrator, as did Newyorkbrad, and Riana is excellent. Hmm...strong support it is then! :) Acalamari 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    Sarah likes to hide me away as the most disruptive administrator she nominated :) Daniel 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

13. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. As per Acalamari.He has over 2300 mainspace edits which are solid and show a mature editor with over 6000 edits overallPharaoh of the Wizards 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral