Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
FT2-Jehochman		25 November 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

FT2-Jehochman

Initiated by Jehochman2 (talk) at 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• FT2 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I have notified everybody.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• A couple hundred emails have been exchanged under supervision of three mediators. This process appears to have reached a state at which further progress is unlikely.

Statement by Jehochman

I am presently (and perhaps unwisely) a candidate in the Arbitration Committee elections. User:FT2, User:Alison, and User:Elonka have made serious accusations against me on the election pages.[1][2][3] These accusations are based in part on private correspondence. Although this may not have been their intention, the effect is to smear my reputation, and leave me unable to respond properly and fully. I therefore request expedited consideration of this request to minimize any taint to the election.

Despite repeated requests, FT2 has refused to share with me the log files on which his accusations are based. He has however shared them with Alison, and possibly others, claiming that Checkusers are empowered to review private evidence. My understanding is that only ArbCom is the proper body to review private correspondence of this nature. There is no issue of sock puppetry here at all. FT2 has not provided any explanation why he cannot share the log files with me. In late September I suffered a hard disk failure and therefore do not have any log files from the time frames in question. Moreover, because I value privacy greatly, I often do not log conversations as I have no intention whatsoever of sharing them. To me "private" means private.

The mediators have included User:SirFozzie, User:Hersfold, and User:Lar. Through their efforts substantial disagreements were resolved. Without any quid pro quo, I posted unequivocal statements to Elonka and to FT2 in an attempt to set the record straight and end the controversy. Neither Elonka nor FT2 have acknowledged my statements as ending the dispute. Disputes should not be allowed to fester endlessly, nor should dispute resolution be allowed to consume an excessive amount of time and volunteer resources.

I request the following steps:

1. Evaluate one of the key underlying issues. Please check FT2's concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 and decide whether they are resolved or whether they deserve further review in light of my clarficiations.
2. If FT2 or any other parties have related concerns about me, please review the confidential and the public evidence to determine what findings or remedies, if any, are needed. Hopefully the disputants would instead agree to shake hands and walk away rather than take up the Committee's time with issues that are very distantly removed from article writing.

In addition, I feel that ArbCom could help minimize needless strife and collateral damage in the community. For example, User:Shell Kinney appears to have made a comment here obliquely referencing this dispute.[4] This resulted in a case ban by User:Manning Bartlett. Manning subsequently left the project for unknown reasons. That is the sort of exceedingly harmful strife and collateral damage I'd very much like to avoid: an experienced administrator getting banned, and an exceptional content contributor leaving.

A motion setting out the events and the resolution would be an ideal result. Thank you for your kind consideration of these matters. Jehochman2 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 21 I copied ArbCom on some email I sent FT2 regarding my concerns about his access to Checkuser/Oversight, and his sock puppetry as User:TBP in 2006, several months before his RfA. In follow up emails copied to the Committee, I requested full, unredacted, unmodified copies of the logs. As of now, I still have only received versions of the logs that FT2 edited and framed. It is my belief now that based on his past and recent behavior FT2 should never regain Checkuser/Oversight access. In particular I am concerned that he violated an agreement to keep the contents of our informal mediation with User:Lar confidential. Such an obvious violation of privacy is incompatible with those offices. FT2 has represented that he can get these offices back any time he likes.[5] Members of the community are interested to know whether that is true, or not.[6] I request the Committee issue a formal statement on whether FT2 can regain Checkuser/Oversight on demand or not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Below FT2 has violated the principle that mediation is confidential. I request he remove his characterizations of my comments during mediation, as they are unhelpful and needlessly inflammatory. He's a former arbitrator. He should know better. Wikilawyering that this is informal mediation so "The Rules" don't apply seems to me most unhelpful. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@FT2. I think my administrator activities have generally been uncontroversial and helpful. I'm not sure why you'd even raise that as an issue here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@Alison. My concern is that you rendered a conclusion and imputed motives to me without hearing my side of the story first. That is not a professional way to handle disputes. Your position as checkuser does not empower you to review correspondence and formally determine if people are liars or not. You've overstepped your mandate, and FT2 mishandled my private correspondence by sharing it without my permission. This was not a sock puppetry case. In any event, you provided a more comprehensible statement of concerns than FT2, and this enabled me to better understand the issues. Thank you for that. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@Alison 2. Would you please note on your campaign page remarks that you are commenting in your capacity as an individual editor, not in your official capacity as a Checkuser/Oversighter. You're entitled to state your opinion, but it would not be proper for your personal opinions to be viewed as an official determination. As one of the few non-Arb Functionaries, I'm held in a position of trust in dealing with privacy and trust-related information, while remaining outside of ArbCom. I am very concerned that voters may be confused because of the way you commented and the way FT2 framed your remarks. Additionally, would you please indicate that your opinion was based on a redacted version of the log that was edited by FT2, rather than the original log. There is a risk that FT2 has selected bits of the log and left out other bits in order to make the evidence appear more damning. Is Checkuser/Oversight status to be used for political purposes? Please make sure it isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ AGK. I agree that nothing good will come of extending this dispute. If this ends, as it should, it will end finally here on this page, and nobody will push further. All that needs to happen is for FT2 to agree to drop it. He's welcome to post any criticism he likes on my campaign pages, as are Elonka and Durova. They've done that before, and I expect they'll continue to do it until the Wikipedia community decides to raise election standards (a good idea!). The heckling is inconsequential. What I cannot tolerate is the endless litigation, the hundreds of tl;dr emails, and most of the all, the wasting of perfectly good volunteer time. Once more I ask, will people agree to finally drop these matters, or does ArbCom need to place formal restrictions? Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

@Carcharoth.

1. I don't know why so many functionaries have gotten involved, except that FT2 has invited them to become involved. Checkusers and Stewards are not meant to be reviewing private correspondence. I'm embarrassed to be taking up so much of their time. The dispute with FT2 originated in early August 2009. Mediation with SirFozzie and Hersfold commenced in October 2009. The Elonka matters were active in the Summer of 2008. I don't understand why these issues were allowed to linger so long. People should not warehouse their grievances and then roll them out in the middle of an election to attack the character of a candidate. Instead, they should get their disputes resolved through proper channels in a timely fashion, and let the results speak for themselves.
2. The case is here now because FT2 is threatening to start an RfC on me, and because he's been circulating my private correspondence to functionaries, which has the consequence of poisoning the well against me. I want to avoid an RfC because I do not want my private correspondence, nor the contents of informal mediation that we agreed to keep private, to be aired on wiki. I'm also opposed to the strife-spreading that would happen via that route. I will only accept review of my private correspondence by ArbCom, and then I'd like full logfiles of entire conversations to be made available, not snippets without their context.
3. I'm hoping the Committee will provide wisdom, if not a motion. I would be happy to drop the matter, shake hands and call it a day. I posted two very serious statements accepting responsibility for my actions to Elonka and to FT2. They may want more, but I've already done my best to reply to their concerns.

Thank you for entertaining this request. Jehochman ^Talk 01:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

My suggestion to all parties is to shake hands and agree to drop these matters in favor of creating free content. That will be much more fun and productive. Much was accomplished during mediation; not everything everybody wanted, but I think as much as can reasonably be expected. Further litigation of these disputes will face diminishing returns and generally not be worth the "costs" to Wikipedia. I cannot force people to drop a matter, but I hope they will see the logic and wisdom of doing so. Will anybody accept my suggestion? Arbitrators, what do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by FT2

The viability of Jehochman's adminship has been in question a while, in the background. A dialog overseen by Lar (who was asked to opine) has been taking place some time now.

Unknown to the community, Jehochman was on the verge of admin conduct RFC (a mutually agreed outcome, possibly via self-RFC) to allow wider review and to determine an appropriate final resolution. I had already asked Arbcom for guidance on appropriate process and timing (Nov 17) due to the proximity of Arbcom elections.

The evidenced issues are that, as an experienced administrator and self-described "senior editor"[7], Jehochman:

1. Used dispute resolution processes such as RFC, recall and RFAR for "political games" (his own candid admission). He did this mainly out of personal pique and anger at another user, to try and get that user desysopped.
2. As an administrator, gave unequivocally false or misleading statements to the community at WP:ACE2008, and again at WP:ACE2009, knowing they were false, in seeking a role of high trust.
3. Improperly by poor adminship and unfounded claims helped derail an RFC, where he now agrees he acted improperly, made unfounded claims and did not check any evidence. He now admits the RFC issues should have obtained serious review. The issues in that RFC remain open.
4. Privately knowing all these matters were accurate and fairly stated, he further denied them at ACE2009, and made repeated (and untruthful) claims that they were just bad faith and unfounded, and he was sorry to see others act this way.
5. Continued making these claims even when another Checkuser/Oversighter (Alison) labeled the evidence as "unequivocal", and his posts as "deliberate community deception".[8]
6. Appears to have "gamed" privacy (claiming on little or no grounds, that the matters were old, irelevant, or would infringe others), apparently to prevent other users seeing the evidence of his own poor position, and to continue make his own unfounded claims without contrary evidence.
7. Another functionary (Lar) was therefore also shown the evidence and asked for an opinion. Faced with questions by Lar, Jehochman engaged in productive dialog, and although unwilling until forced, he has now finally admitted the substance of these matters to the community in two posts to myself and Elonka.

However a further concern then arose. Having made the agreed disclosures, at the point of setting up a previously agreed RFC, Jehochman suddenly "flipped" from amicable dialog to wild and irrational floods of ludicrous claims. This ran across several emails, suddenly maintaining "out of the blue" that others are showing bad faith, weird conspiracy theories, not having seen the full evidence, withdrawing permission to quote, etc. If I hadn't seen it I would not have believed it. Lar appears (by his emails) as surprised as I am.

Lar can confirm there was no provocation nor visible dispute at the time; the email dialog was consistently amicable, and precisely and smoothly followed prior explicit agreements on what would be done next -- so much so that Jehochman had already been discussing RFC titles. Jehochman repeated the same in another email, then filed this RFAR, naming people as parties regardless of involvement.

All this is categorically evidenced. The community was due to be asked within days to help conclude Jehochman's case by reviewing the agreed incidents and evidence, asking questions, and determining any final decision. Jehochman appears to have "flipped" and instead suddenly decided to seek RFAR without any especial good reason or desired result. That's fine, if Arbcom want to consider it. Personally I'd have preferred community review, but it's his choice, and the concerns are severe. We're at the right venue..... especially as Jehochman's been rather prone to casting unfounded "smoke" and gaming privacy-barred evidence.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Jehochman: Lar was asked for a formal opinion on some evidence as an admin and functionary, he emailed us both questions, and stayed in the loop as we considered the answers. It's 100.00% citable. Resolved below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Lar: I had no expectation of privacy in the dialog we had, nor did I ask for it. I think you'll find that's a retrospective notion, inserted after the fact. If you check, I stated explicitly very early on, that privacy of dialog (beyond the minimum required by site norms) was absolutely not possible as an expectation here, since it had previously been gamed to cover up misconduct. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Hersfold, SirFozzie: Our dialog took place mostly in October, before the events of ACE2009 (to clarify for others). Privacy was agreed. Confirming I will not cite from it here or to Arbcom, or anywhere else. However if Jehochman or either of you wish to quote my words, or describe that dialog, I give consent, provided it is done neutrally and honestly regarding overall intention and context. I reserve the right (stated at the time) to correct unbalanced or unfounded statements is all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@ AGK: Jehochman was faced with admin conduct RFC, and appears to have chosen this route instead. While the presented "case" is spurious, the case he would have faced, as summarized above, is an appropriate arbcom matter covering gross breach of trust and misconduct by an administrator, and non-public dialogs as evidence. The further attempts today to exclude the new email material and assert "smoke" makes clear a public venue won't work any more. (See Alison's evidence)

Update: Logs sent (and CC Lar and Alison to crosscheck). What they will show is Jehochman got a meticulous extract last time too, and nothing important was left out. See your talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Carcharoth: It essentially started in October, when Jehochman requested mediation over concerns arising from his improper actions at an earlier RFC. However in November Jehochman nominated himself for Arbcom election. At that point a past of gaming RFAR, by an Arbcom candidate, becomes a valid candidate concern, raised at WP:ACE2009. Jehochman (to be blunt) lied about his past actions at the election, and so Alison was asked to review and opine (Arbitrators being a poor choice for an election candidate). She was scathing - moreso than I'd been. Jehochman continued to state untruths on ACE2009, while relying on copyright to prevent others checking. So Lar was asked to give a second opinion, at which point dialog took place. Jehochman understood from the start that his actions were grossly problematic as an administrator and review by the community would be required. On the verge of posting an admin conduct RFC, he has posted a spurious RFAR. His actions have been to defend himself via spurious claims and distraction. I have no preference as to timing or venue, I'm fine with expedited or with waiting till after the election. The case was brought by the candidate himself, not by me. Either way the serious nature of his actions merits communal or arbcom examination, timing not important. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Newyorkbrad: Re-read the above statement and Alison's review of the evidence. The facts stated are each unequivocally evidenced. This is not about "who is fit to be an arbitrator". It's about "Given his own non-public disclosures, is Jehochman of a level of integrity and trust even to be an admin". The 'couple of hundred emails' arose from persuading Jehochman to face the issues; they're no longer relevant. The case and evidence is trivially simple. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Risker: What exactly is there to mediate? The facts are known and the evidence showing serious repeated "bad faith" adminship is agreed. Ignoring the spurious material, the question is, what is an appropriate follow-up? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ CoolHandLuke: 1/ See above. 2/ It's an admin conduct issue, the connection with the election is merely that the election is where the most visible misconduct took place and was challenged. 2b/ Please see my statements and Alisons for the context you're after, and consider if these show cause for appropriate adminship concern. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hersfold

Placeholder for an eventual statement. As Jehochman mentioned, I was involved along with some others in trying to mediate this dispute through private email. Unfortunately, I've gotten a new computer since then, and my email client is refusing to download emails that my old computer's client already grabbed. They're not deleted, I just have to go read them through Gmail which is a little more inconvenient. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I was asked to review material. I contacted both parties and offered to be a sounding board. (an informal mediator if you like but I didn't use that term and I certainly don't consider myself covered under official mediation guidelines per se) I thought a productive dialog was taking place, at a reasonable pace, but I decline to give specifics. I consider material sent me as private correspondence during the course of this dialog to be private since both parties entered into this with an expectation of privacy and I will not be releasing anything sent me regarding this matter without the permission of the party that sent it. I have nothing further to say at this time. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

I am posting a statement to confirm that I was involved along with some others in trying to mediate this dispute through private email. The terms of my involvement in the email mediation was that the discussion was going to be held under similar terms as to those involved with on-Wikipedia Mediations. Therefore, I am going to have to decline to speak further on this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Alison

As FT2 states below and on the ACE2009 candidate's page, I was contacted out of the blue by FT2 on the matter of this personal correspondence. He pointed me to the then page containing Jehochman's and his statements and asked my would I evaluate some personal messages between himself and Jehochman, then state my opinion on the matter. As someone who regularly reviews privacy-related material and as someone who is used to keeping such matters private, I agreed. This is something that happens amongst other functionaries; checkusers are asked for second opinions on IP-related info, oversighters ask for sanity checks, etc. Privacy is implied and, as per any other such issue, I have not and will not share the information I was given without the prior consent of the parties involved. Having said that, if Jehochman agrees (FT2 and Elonka already have), I will be happy to forward on the messages I was given to ArbCom. I entered this matter from 'cold', having not been previously involved in any of the Bish/Elonka/Jehochman/FT2 stuff, and was unaware of any of the history there.

Anyways - to the issue itself. On reading and comparing Jehochman's statements in the message logs to what he stated on his ACE2009 candidate's questions page (since updated), I saw major discrepancies. I posted one single message to that page, over three edits, detailing my findings.

It was clear from my reading of these logs and from the on-wiki discussion, that FT2 was in a complete quandary. He knew that Jehochman had been saying one thing off-wiki, but stating another on-wiki at his ACE2009 page. These were blatantly at variance but FT2 had no way to challenge or refute these statements without posting excerpts of their chat logs or forwarding them on to others. Jehochman was relying upon his being bound over by copyright rules re. posting of personal messages on-wiki. That's why he called in two neutral parties (myself and Lar) to review them. I actually didn't know about Lar's involvement until much later.

What I found was that where Jehochman accused FT2 of misrepresentation of what he had said, in fact FT2 had not misrepresented his statements at all. Indeed, it couldn't have been clearer, in my opinion. He also accused FT2 of having been motivated by "personal grievances." However, less than a minute after posting that comment on -wiki, he stated unequivocally in the log that FT2 may actually be 100% correct in what he had said. I simply cannot reconcile these two positions; one off-wiki and one in the public view. As I stated, that plus the comments about "grudge bearing" can only lead me to conclude that Jehochman is being duplicitous in his on-wiki statements; he is expressing one thing privately whilst saying something completely different in public. I viewed that as deliberate community deception and stated that at the time. I still maintain that. There is a lot more detail in my comments posted at the ACE2009 questions page, linked here.

Since posting that, I withdrew from the page and refrained from commenting further, though Jehochman's initial response was kinda snarky and confrontational. He would later change that significantly, instead thanking me for "helping to shed some light on these matters", and asking me to redact parts of my statement. I have since not posted anything Arb-related to other candidates though hope to post a few questions of my own to all candidates soon. I have not shared any of the private correspondence with anyone else, nor will I without clear assent. - Allie ^❤

@ Jehochman

It wasn't that difficult to render a conclusion, to be honest, as the statements spoke for themselves. Anyone could have seen that. Nor was this a dispute resolution process and I was not in the role of mediator. I can review correspondence and state my opinion on the contents just as much as the next person. The reason (I guess) FT2 chose myself and Lar was because we're already trusted with privacy-related information as part of our work here - it's that simple. I've not 'overstepped my mandate', unless you deem I've done so in my position as just another editor. That's up to ArbCom to figure out, I guess. Anyhow - I'm going to be out of town for Thanksgiving, so will have limited on-line access until Sunday - Allie ^❤ 07:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Jehochman 2

I've seen a number of revisions of your question above, none of which I'm particularly impressed with. They start off being particularly snarky and end up being toned down to this. As neither checkuser nor oversight function has been used, I cannot see how this could possibly be construed as "misuse of Checkuser/Oversight access" or even misuse of the position, frankly. I have repeatedly stated here and on your ACE2009 page that FT2 approached me as someone who was a non-Arb yet who was held in a position of trust as a checkuser/oversighter, and as someone who deals with privacy-related information on a regular basis. That is all! Please do not try to spin this into something it is not, and please stop vacillating between shooting the messenger and thanking me for my shedding light onto matters. My brain is beginning to hurt. As a courtesy, I will update my comment on your ACE2009 page to indicate that this is my personal opinion as an editor, as I have already done above. Furthermore, as you now have the logs in question, you know as to how "particularly damning" they may be and I'm not about to change my position on this whatsoever. There's not a whole lot redaction can do in this case, and you must already be aware of that by now - Allie ^❤ 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I just want to clear up a misconception here. The only mediation on Wikipedia which is privileged is formal mediation, which the Mediation Committee coordinates. All other mediation (whether it be through the mediation cabal or other forms of informal mediation) is not privileged in nature - it's the key thing that sets aside formal mediation from other types of mediation on the project. Not one part of this case came through the Mediation Committee and was therefore not formal in nature, therefore privilege is not enforceable here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

I am not a party to the email conversations that are being referenced between FT2, Jehochman, Lar, Alison, etc. It does, however, seem that I am definitely one of the subjects of the conversation, in regards Jehochman's longterm attempts to get me de-sysopped for his own personal reasons. To help clarify things, I did want to say that to the best of my knowledge, I have not engaged in any off-wiki conversations with Jehochman for years. He did attempt to contact me several weeks ago because he had concerns that someone else might have been misusing oversight access during the Undertow/Law mess; however, I did not reply. Because of my past experiences with Jehochman where he would behave in an erratic and dishonest manner, it is my opinion that the fewer conversations that I have with Jehochman, the better. I do give my permission for the parties to discuss me, so they don't have to worry about privacy issues. Also, if this case is opened, I will be happy to present additional evidence, both to expand on my statements here, and to give a more complete picture (from my point of view) of why Jehochman has been pursuing this longterm vendetta. Other than that, since I was not involved in the current discussions, I'll stay out of this unless anyone has specific questions. --Elonka 22:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from AGK

I was under the impression that Jehochman had agreed to abstain from all interaction with Elonka. If this is the case, why then has he listed Elonka as a party to this request when she is not a party to the underlying dispute?

I am at a loss to see what this arbitration request is designed to achieve. Jehochman states that "FT2 has refused to share with me the log files on which his accusations are based". The committee could not coerce FT2 into sharing these logs. Jehochman complains that some statements by FT2 have had the effect of smearing his reputation (and his candidature to the current ArbCom elections). Could that complaint not be settled by a community discussion? What justification is there for pursuing arbitration in the first instance for dispute resolution? In most situations, it ought to be the last.

Jonathan asks the committee to scrutinise his conduct and state whether or not it is problematic. Why would a simple user conduct RfC not be sufficient? The parties seem willing to compromise, and so the forcible resolution of the dispute by arbitration is unnecessary. The Manning and Shell issues are irrelevancies: although they do on the surface seem to be related to this dispute between FT2 and Jehochman, in actuality they were not. (In Shell's case, what matters is whether she broke the guidelines for case talk page discussion. She could have been banned for talking about anything that is unrelated. In Manning's, he left the project because he was criticised—unfairly, in his mind.)

The more I think about it, the more I realise that the only result of this thread seems to be a whole lot of drama. AGK 23:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hans Adler's statement

I do not like that statement, and would ask that an uninvolved clerk evaluate its necessity. It drags FT2's name through the mud in a cruel way. Please, Hans: respect your colleague's dignity. AGK 00:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Durova

For the second time in three years my Thanksgiving preparations are getting interrupted by an RFAR filed with Jehochman's name on it. Fortunately this time I have the option of ignoring the request, but neither conscience nor better judgment will allow that. I have emails that pertain directly to the Elonka-Jehochman dispute. And although Elonka and I are by no means close (we have barely been on speaking terms for the better part of two years), Jehochman's offsite disclosures to me indicate that Elonka is exactly right in her claims about Jehochman.

Alison's statement raises serious worries. I have not seen the correspondence between FT2 and Jehochman. Yet my own records contain two other instances of a similar nature. It has been a longstanding dilemma what to do because community mechanisms are unable to address this type of problem. This would constitute pattern behavior on Jehochman's part. It did not come to my attention until after he was sysopped.

If the Committee accepts this case, there are several instances that deserve examination regarding Jehochman's use of administrative powers. These relate to the current RFAR because of a common theme also demonstrated in his actions toward Elonka: Jehochman initiated an admin recall request on Elonka very shortly after a conduct RFC had opened on her--before she was able to fully address its concerns. Subsequently he reviewed one of his own blocks, reviewed one of his own AE closures, and attempted three times to impose community sanctions unilaterally: outside of arbitration enforcement and without community discussion. In all of those situations he short circuited or bypassed Wikipedia's checks and balances. Even if he were right on the merits in every one of those instances, his decisions caused strife and set dangerous precedents.

His response to attempts at discussion has been to disregard the substance and accuse me of wikihounding, even on matters where I had already been active before he was. It is a relief to see him initiate this RFAR himself. It needed to happen. Durova³⁶⁹ 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke: although I've had nothing to do with this year's debates surrounding Jehochman's candidacy, one example from last year was a complete fabrication he asserted on the talk page of his candidate vote where he claimed I had made an unethical demand of him offsite. Nothing like what he alleged had occurred. It's rather hard to prove a negative, but I still have all my correspondence with from the relevant time frame and it is completely consistent. The related and more pertinent concerns regard his use of administrative powers, and those are easy to demonstrate. For instance, in the AE thread where he reviewed his own closure he added a short topic ban when he reviewed his action. Subsequently the editor who had received the ban went to user Jehochman's talk to discuss it, along with one other editor, and he threatened them both with further sanctions for attempting to hold the dialog. The latter episode is fully accessible through WP histories, although Jehochman blanked the thread from his talk page shortly after it occurred. Durova³⁶⁹ 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I will not be sending any private evidence to the Committee until/unless the case opens and will not be distributing or publishing the material otherwise. If this case opens I plan to send the Committee a bullet pointed report which outlines each set of relevant materials, and then per their direction supply the evidence they consider to be pertinent and within case scope. Unless, of course, the arbitrators prefer a different approach. Durova³⁶⁹ 07:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To Cool Hand Luke, the first time this behavior came to my attention it seemed out of character because Jehochman was someone I trusted. Anyone could make a mistake once under stress. It recurred in a different situation approximately one month afterward so I made my opinion of it known to him in a way that I hoped would discourage him from doing it again. The Elonka recall bid happened more than a half year afterward. I wavered about starting an admin conduct RfC on him then, but the conduct was not an exact duplicate of what he had done before. Similar enough to have me worried, but the community couldn't possibly evaluate the relevant material. Bogeys about cloak-and-dagger and drama would have been certain to arise. Now a similar problem has surfaced again with a different set of people. How would you suggest this be dealt with, if not by an arbitration per Jehochman's own request? The only interim solution I can recommend to anyone is that when Jehochman initiates offsite overtures and insinuates that he has inside information or that he speaks on someone's behalf, either ignore him or seek direct confirmation from the other person immediately. In posting these words I risk several types of mud getting slung in this direction, and there's nothing really to be done about that if the only panel that has the ability to evaluate the matter properly refuses to try. Durova³⁶⁹ 22:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Earlier comment; now struck
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The primary issue here is trust and conduct of admin. A number of users have made allegations regarding admin breaching trust and questioned whether conduct is befitting of an user who is in an admin position (that is not limited to this one dispute). As for dishonesty, when it comes from admins, let alone users of any other category, it brings this project into disrepute - note also arbitrator resignations over this sort of thing, and prior general election drama. Arb candidacy is a mere secondary issue and a skillful distraction from the core problems. To put it more informally, as I recall, you lot were elected to concern yourselves with conduct issues; not election process issues. Classing this as a mere "political dispute" suggests that only a cursory look has been given to the statements here, or that an excessive focus has been given to the secondary issue concerning ArbCom candidacy - that is a skillful distraction. The major issue needs to be addressed more effectively, even in your rationales. As for RfC/U, it's no secret I always encourage that be used. However, certain evidence that will be important (to the particular dispute raised at the top) cannot be raised, meaning much of the issues may remain unresolved. As the conduct issues there also spill into the evidence that can be posted on-wiki (or even RfC/U), that is perhaps why there are many urges for arbitration - so all the conduct concerns can be examined as a whole, and remedies concerning conduct can be issued accordingly. Note: Jehochman has affected his own candidacy this year by filing this request, and it is reasonably foreseeable that he knew the effects of filing this request. Also, that it would not be resolved swiftly. ArbCom cannot seriously expect a separate request to be filed, even by someone else, even at a later time, merely because he framed this one poorly (or had certain expectations whic may not be met). It does not change, or even come close to resolving the underlying concerns. Also, it may have been a different story if the community could actually review all evidence relating to the matter so that it could come to an informed decision, and if the community had a mechanism to deal with admins, but we don't have either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, having read some of the updates and rereading the statements, arbitration is not a means for avoiding community scrutiny. In fact, declining this request seems to be doing a favour for all parties, and perhaps that's most beneficial for the time being - however, if these problems aren't sorted out, my earlier comment (along with more) would strongly apply, if and when this unfortunately comes back here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Hans Adler

If you collect enough information about a person, it will always contain at least one bit somewhere that can be used to paint them as a criminal. One bit that looks like conclusive proof of criminal behaviour – unless you read it in a very wide context that makes you understand communication habits, the evolution of tongue-in-cheek comments between two communication partners, etc. I do not know if such taking out of context is what happened here. I would have to trust the person who came up with the information to not take information out of context in such a way.

The problem is that the person who came up with the information is FT2. He is just about the last editor on this wiki who I would trust to treat confidential information fairly. My opinion of him is based mainly on his behaviour that led ultimately to WP:Requests for comment/FT2; my first negative impression dates back to June 2008. [9] I think it's safe to say that FT2's integrity is not beyond reasonable doubt.

This case has alerted me to the fact that until very recently FT2 still had checkuser and oversight rights. Now he has given them up, but apparently he thinks he can simply get them back by asking for them. The community needs to know whether that is the case or not. It also seems to me that if FT2's privileges should ever lead to complications in real life for anybody, the Wikimedia Foundation might be asked whether they have shown due diligence after it was clear that FT2 does not have the trust of the community.

These are the important points in this case as I see them. Arbcom is probably not under any obligation to deal with any of them. However, if you see the chance to resolve any of these points efficiently it might be a good idea to do so. Hans Adler 14:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by supposedly involved Bishonen

Comment on AGK's request that Hans Adler "respect [FT2]'s dignity".

Anthony, Hans' comment is frank, but it's much more respectful and less cruel, as well as being more to the point, than FT2's string of nasty attacks against Jehochman— attacks timed to coincide with Jehochman's ArbCom election run, yet! How about you ask both FT2 and Hans not to drag people's names through the mud? Bishonen | talk 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Comment by uninvolved Bigtimepeace

Oh for the love of god and leftover turkey and cranberry sauce! This has to be one of the most ridiculous disputes I've ever seen on Wikipedia, which means it is one of the most ridiculous disputes since those quarks and muons and what-have-yous got in an argument, resulting in that Big Bang thing (damn muons! I hate you!). I think the ridiculousness will be readily apparent to anyone like myself who is uninvolved and does not give a damn so I won't bother specifying, but suffice it to say that a number of veteran editors are acting in an extraordinarily silly fashion. I assume that can be explained by the fact that it is indeed silly season, what with ArbCom elections and the need of many to do an enormous amount of shopping in the next few weeks. It's difficult to exaggerate the extent to which this entire matter would look at best incredibly dumb or (far more likely) completely incomprehensible to non-Wikipedians, or indeed to the vast majority of active Wikipedians. The fact that outside editors have been dragged in to try to help out in some fashion only makes the entire matter rather more sad (points to those folks for trying though I suppose).

The only thing useful about the entire imbroglio is that it could serve as a classic example of the primary way in which Wikipedia can completely suck—stupid disputes and petty personal disagreements escalating into thousands and thousands of words of argumentation about absolutely nothing. Thankfully the committee seems to be smart enough to drop this whole matter in the trashbin as though dropping stuff in trashbins was going out of style (don't worry—it isn't!). Everyone, including me, who has had anything remotely to do with whatever in the hell this super annoying doodad is should now run away from it at the speed of light and never speak of it again. The entire situation is embarrassingly far, far, far away from the process of writing an online encyclopedia. Happy Black Friday! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Jehochman, I went through the RFM archives and could not find any case in which FT2 participated. Only mediations formally conducted by the Mediation Committee are privileged. Could you email a link to clerks-l if it is indeed just the case that my searching skills are subpar. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Lar presented himself as a mediator. It is not a formal case, but I don't see why we'd suddenly start posting the contents of private correspondence on wiki (even in summary form) without consent of the participants. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, to clarify then, Lar is not a formal mediator, so we aren't discussing the privilege of mediation then, we are discussing the privacy of correspondence. If I recall correctly, off-wiki comments made privately may be summarized or referenced, but may not be quoted on-wiki as the controlling factor is respect for copyright. I believe Doug KnightLago might be better informed on this matter since he did just clerk the similar EEML case. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Whatever the case may be, I operate under the principles of common sense and common decency. If somebody presents themselves and a mediator and says, "Let's talk about this", I expect that conversation is not going to be repeated elsewhere. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I understand your concerns, however I'm somewhat limited to ministerial actions of things either in policy or as directed by the arbs, and since the only guidance I have is the past practice of permitting summaries and admissions of non-privileged mediations, my hands are tied fairly strongly here. You might try emailing arb-l as they would have the discretionary power to change their own guidance. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you. I understand the constraints. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note on Lar. The reason Lar became involved was not official mediation, nor did he approach us to offer mediation, nor was he asked to mediate. After Jehochman claimed (now withdrawn) that the concerns raised were bad faith, I asked Alison (as a Checkuser/Oversighter in high regard) to review and opine. She did so - and was scathing. Jehochman continued to deny the matters, so I approached another uninvolved functionary (Lar) to review them independently. Lar asked us clarifying questions about the evidence, and we kept him in the loop thereafter. That's how he came into the case. (Disclosure: I also asked one or two other functionaries less formally as well, in the past. But Lar and Alison were the only two asked formally and without any prior "chat" to opine, for the purposes of WP:ACE2009.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Recused as one of the mediators between the disputants. I'll probably make a statement in the next few days. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'd also like to add that by virtue of my activities and the nature of the case, I think I've actually interacted to a deep level with all named participants. But, I can't figure out what exactly all the veiled and referenced material is. If any of it involves me, could someone let me know so I'll know if I should recuse. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of it involves you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Confirmed. None involves you. The private material covers Jehochman's admissions about himself and his actions, and his activities related to Elonka (who has consented to their disclosure). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note I've emailed the arbs and other clerks asking them which standard I should apply to comments (absolute privilege of mediation, semi-strict privilege of private correspondence, or the standard "don't use naughty words" baseline.) MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to leave all content on the page. Leave the evidence of indiscretion. It serves to highlight the reasons why I'd like the Committee to help implement a formal end to this dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Result Per Ryan's statement, there is no privilege of mediation of content present. Therefore, the only restrictions that would apply with regard to what may be posted onwiki are here and here. Anything that meets those criterion and therefore cannot be posted onwiki should be emailed to the Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Otherwise, parties are expected to abide by the normal rules of decorum, behavior, and procedure in their presentation of reasons why the Committee should accept or reject the matter. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Case name Right now I'm not sure the casename is properly descriptive. If this starts moving towards accept and there isn't anymore context to the situation, it will probably end up with a name like WP:RFAR/Jehochman-FT2-Elonka-Bishonen-Lar-Alison-Sirfozzie-AGK-Shell Kinney-Manning Bartlett-Hersfold. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are going to name the case that, please indef block me and delete this page instead. Jehochman ^Talk 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I'll block any clerk who tries opening a case with a name like that. :-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Recused as Coren said, "since one of the parties is a candidate in the elections where I am, myself, standing." KnightLago (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Serious question

Resolved question. MBisanz talk

I've got most of the logs (am waiting for the final bits) and intend to just post them somewhere for the sake of ending this silliness. What are the requirements to avoid getting myself tarred and feathered for illegal log posting? Jehochman Talk 04:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC) MBisanz has answered your question on his talk page. Risker (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Regarding private correspondence If you put log files on Wikipedia without copyright release of all parties who have contributed to the log, I will block you. If you put log files on a website and link to that website from Wikipedia without copyright release from all parties who have contributed to the log, I will block you. If you put log files on a website and link to that website from Wikipedia Review and then link to the Wikipedia Review thread from Wikipedia without copyright release from all parties who have contributed to the log, I will block you. If you put log files on a website and someone else links to that website without copyright release from all parties who have contributed to the log, I will block them. If you get everyone who has contributed to the log to say on-wiki they agree to permit cc-by-sa-3.0 licensing of their comments and then post the log on-wiki, I will do nothing. If you get everyone who has contributed to the log to email permissions-enwikimedia.org stating they release their comments under cc-by-sa-3.0 and then have the OTRS agent post the log on-wiki with a link to the merge OTRS ticket, I will do nothing. If you offer to email them to anyone and nothing else happens, I will do nothing. If you offer to email them to anyone and someone who is not your agent then posts them on Wikipedia, I will block that person. If you offer to email them to anyone and someone who is your agent then posts them on Wikipedia, I will block you and them. If you offer to email them to anyone and someone who is not your agent, but with whom you associate, posts them on-wiki, I will block you and them. Okey? MBisanz talk 04:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC) MBisanz, you have my permission to post complete, dated, unredacted, uncorrected, uncommented logs if they are sent to you along with the necessary permissions from FT2. It is essential that they not be framed, edited, adulterated, mutilated, annotated, spindled or otherwise changed from the raw ascii characters, except that you may insert line breaks for readability, and wrap the entire thing in pre tags to preserve the original formatting insomuch as possible given the page width and font size on wikipedia. I recommend using style="font-size:1.2em" in the pre tag to make the text of a size suitable for reading by humans with ordinary visual acuity. Before you post, as I have not yet seen the complete versions, I want to make sure they do not contain any excessively personal information, like my bank account passwords, or any scandalous materials, such as an account of the last Connecticut Chapter Meetup, or otherwise contain any sort of improper materials. Please shoot me a copy for approval prior to posting. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Umm, No, Jehochman. You may not lay this on an Arbitration Committee clerk. If the Committee wants evidence, we will ask for it. You must take full responsibility for posting anything relating to this matter, and may not request that an Arbitration Committee clerk act as your proxy. Risker (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I don't want any further litigation, blocks, deletions or other controversies associated with this. I'd feel most comfortable if a neutral administrator volunteered to confirm the necessary permissions, verify the completeness and authenticity of the log and then post it. Volunteers? Jehochman Talk 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) That would fall under If you offer to email them to anyone and someone who is your agent then posts them on Wikipedia, I will block you and them. from above in case it isn't obvious. MBisanz talk 05:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dismissal

Per Jehochman's request to withdraw and in consultation with the arbitrators, this request will be dismissed without prejudice to refile and archived at 00:01 28 November 2009. The clerk also notes that anyone refiling on substantially the same subject matter before 00:01 15 December 2009 will be smacked upside the head. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/1)

• Jehochman, if you missed this reply, please read it now and adjust your statement accordingly unless you are aware of the facts of the matter and believe it is necessary to incorporate it into the requested case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Jehochman, thanks for making this change in response to what John said above. A couple of brief comments from me, with more to follow if needed (though I will hold back if other arbs comment).
  • (1) Why have so many people, including functionaries and others whose time might be better spent on other matters, become involved in mediating this dispute? How long has this dispute being going on for? Should this not have been brought to the community or ArbCom earlier, before "hundreds of e-mails" had been exchanged?
  • (2) Given the amount of time spent trying to resolve this dispute, why is it being brought to a head at this time of year? If this is being escalated now (by either side in the dispute) for political reasons only, then ArbCom would be fully justified in rejecting this request (the community should decide such matters, and the community and the parties, not those making the accusations, should decide who reviews any private evidence).
  • (3) It is unlikely that a full case would be dealt with before the elections start. Even dealing with this by motion may be problematic. With that, and the above in mind, do either Jehochman or FT2 see any way to resolve this matter swiftly, within the next few days, and what remains to be resolved here?

At the moment, leaning to declining the request. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And on further review, decline, per Cool Hand Luke. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Carcharoth.) Allowing a little time for further input, but currently leaning toward declining the case and urging everyone involved (on both or all sides) to drop this matter (or should I say tangle of matters). I don't see any likely result from accepting this or any similar case except general drama-raising, finger-pointing, and unhappiness, without corresponding encyclopedic or even governance benefit. If "a couple [of] hundred e-mails have already been exchanged" surrounding this dispute, then one or more people have lost their sense of perspective and should focus on something else for awhile. Finally, issues relating to who is or is not best suited to be an arbitrator are for decision by the broader community, not this committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse; since one of the parties is a candidate in the elections where I am, myself, standing. — Coren ^(talk) 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - All participants: Please do not send the Arbitration Committee any "confidential evidence" until such time as it is decided whether or not to accept this case or specifically request it. Frankly, I tend to agree with Newyorkbrad and, in particular, Carcharoth's first point. There doesn't seem to be a particularly good reason for this not to have gone through the formal mediation process rather than an informal one taking up the time and energy of functionaries and other administrators. Risker (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to FT2: Please, please stop changing your statement. It is not the same one I read last night, but it's nearly impossible to tell what you have changed. We don't have the time to have to re-read your statement multiple times. Thank you. Risker (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to Durova: Thank you, your outlined method of how you would forward private correspondence (should this matter open as a case) is entirely appropriate, and I would suggest that other participants here follow your lead. Risker (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• (1) Has there been a bulk sale on cloaks and daggers? (2) It appears to me that this is an essentially political dispute that should be hashed out by the electorate first—if I'm mistaken about this, would someone provide some context beyond words like "misleading statements to the community"? Whatever this case is, it will only seem stronger once removed from the perception of political motivations. ArbCom does not act to vindicate a user's honesty, nor does it certify approved candidates. (3) One or more parties seems to have lost all sense of perspective. Cf. NYB's comments above. (4) Decline. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to FT2: I did read your and Alison's statements before the above remark. I found little context in them—certainly not enough to accept a sketchy "conduct unbecoming" case on the eve of an election. If Jehochman has committed conduct unbecoming of an admin, that will still be true on December 15. Indeed, Durova and others allege that this has been a long-time problem, so another three weeks will not destroy the project. Until then, politics deeply colors this case, and I would prefer that politics be worked out by the electorate first. Cool Hand Luke 18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per NYB and others. Wizardman 17:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)