Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jehochman: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Support: typo fix (thanks Tiptoety)
Line 104: Line 104:
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] ([[User talk:Catchpole|talk]]) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] ([[User talk:Catchpole|talk]]) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' When I asked Jehochman to remove a derogatory comment about me from an other editors page he told me to ignore it, when the [[User Talk:Sunray|mediator]] who was dealing with my mediation removed it he warned him about removing it and went on to protect the page with offending comment still on it. <strong>[[User:BigDunc|<span style="font-family:Ariel Black;color:Green">BigDunc</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:BigDunc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Orange">Talk</span></sup>]] 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:39, 1 December 2008

Jehochman

I first came to Wikipedia in March of 2005. Several people in my industry, search engine optimization, had told me that Wikipedia was a good place to get some free links. So I tried it,[1] and received a gentle warning.[2] To those of you who don't bite the newbies, thank you.

Wikipedia is a tremendously useful and entertaining website. I enjoy reading articles on many different topics. I also use the encyclopedia as a reference for work, and to help my kids with their homework. My content editing interests currently include German submarines, Russian submarines, shipwrecks, naval battles, computer technology, and whatever else catches my eye.

In October 2007 I became an administrator. My areas of administrative interest include controlling sock puppetry, disruptive editing and harassment. These types of cases frequently end up at arbitration, where I have been a named party in eight cases, more than any other candidate. I believe my experiences, both positive and negative, would bring value to the Committee.

Our Arbitration Committee has performed well in a thankless and difficult job. However, we cannot take for granted that the English Wikipedia community will continue to thrive. Every generation of editors must guard against the destructive forces of blight, including:

  • Vandalism and worse, the addition of misinformation or unreliable information;
  • Parasitic marketers who spam, spin, and whitewash our articles;
  • Sock puppetry and other types of gaming the rules;
  • Harassment, personal attacks, and outing which discourage participation;
  • Cabalism which disenfranchises individual editors and turns some of our articles into battle zones.

I think I can help guard against these threats, and help the Committee not only make the right decisions, but also enhance their reputation within the community. Thank you for your consideration. Please vote. Jehochman Talk 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. An editor with integrity, openness, and commitment to the ideals of what this project is supposed to be about. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Durova. I think we less secrecy and more openness in Arbcom decisions and Jehochman is a right guy Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oren0 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support simply because you have the experience and have been about 50/50, which is better than what most people would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. per OR. Giggy (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I had made a list of people who I would be fine with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Arbiters that would be unfraid to in public diverge strongly from any inappropriate AC "party line" are needed. Wikipedia is more important than the AC, and someone who seems to think that way has my vote. Drama? Maybe, but sometimes you need the fire of public drama to keep back-channel operators in line and from dealing inappropriately. rootology (C)(T) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support John254 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Prodego talk 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You go, Jehochman! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Strikes me as opinionated, principled, clear-spoken, and beholden to no one. Would make a strong arb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Shows that he understands the many kinds of editors that make up Wikipedia, not just the highly visible cliques. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, I dont agree with many of his answers, but I do like them. Diversity is good. He has a very strong experience in the frustrations of arbitration, and a different approach to dealing with matters. I think he would be a good addition to a committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Jehochman seems to me to be a deep thinking editor who sincerely wants the best for the encyclopedia, and consistently does what he believes to be best. Unfortunately, such actions seldom earn friends and support from the masses, which is a great pity, as Wikipedia needs some gentle reforms and Jehochman is one of the few I would trust to help bring them about. The Arbitration committee needs a better mix of editors, and it needs such as Hochman. Giano (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Futile Support. Brilliantine (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Avenue (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support - Jehochman is thoughtful and widely experience in a number of areas relevant to Arbitration. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I am personally voting for Jehochman from the positive behaviors I have experienced with him. He does dip into the drama areas but I see him trying to add more light than fire to them. Good luck! --CrohnieGalTalk 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Horologium (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - ScarianCall me Pat! 11:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Skinwalker (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support •CHILLDOUBT• 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support better than what we have! Verbal chat 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I don't agree on everything he does, but he's a fast improvement over most of the gang.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I think Jehochman would be an excellent Arbitrator, and he's been willing to get his hands dirty, which sets him apart from nearly all of the other candidates. I'd like to see a day where active involvement in the project's controversial issues is not automatic certain doom for an ArbCom candidate; it should be a requirement. MastCell Talk 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weaker than expected support. Some time ago, I contacted Jehochman privately to ask that he consider running for Arb Comm. Since then, I've come to share some of the concerns from opposers about drama-mongery, and I hope that he'll take these concerns under advisement if elected. On the whole, however, he remains one of the more courageous and level-headed candidates. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. On balance. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I agree with Orangemarlin: I don't agree with everything Jehochman does, but I trust his judgment overall. My own interactions with him have been fine, and he has the necessary experience for the role. Acalamari 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongest possible oppose Jehochman has a long history of what could be termed dispute enhancement: passing out pitchforks and lighting torches. Most recently he did that with the banned sockpuppet that was spreading rumors about FT2, Giano, and Oversight. Jehochman even cross posted the troll’s claims to AE under the subthread heading ‘Conspiracy?’. A couple of weeks earlier Jehochman was the sole certifier for the unpopular RFC initiated by Charles Matthews on Slrubenstein. Jehochman was the one who initiated the controversial Elonka recall drive. In the leadup to the unfortunate Zeraeph arbitration he started a community ban proposal on her while other editors were seeking to deescalate. This is pattern behavior that Jehochman has demonstrated in a lot of other situations also: turning up the heat when it isn’t necessary, then after dozens of other people make the difficult decision to come down on one side or another he acts conciliatory and bows out of the resulting mess. Few administrators could be less suitable for arbitration than someone who does this habitually. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Concerned oppose. Perhaps a minor thing, but edit warring against consensus a day before voting begins??? If someone can't avoid problematic behavior even when the eyes of the project are on them, god help us if they got a three-year tenure as an arb. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Ѕandahl ♥ 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Voyaging(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Durova. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. iridescent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. krimpet✽ 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Majorly talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose. I concur with Durova's assessment, and would add IRC admin-shopping and a history of on-wiki harassment to the list of concerns about Jehochman's behavior. He is absolutely not someone who should be on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Further comments and diffs, as well as Jehochman's rebuttal, are available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Steven Walling (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Needs to learn how to reduce drama rather than increase it. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not a bad guy, but he has some ongoing disputes with other admins and long term contributors that I think demonstrate the sort of battleground positioning which has been detrimental to Wikipedia. Avruch T 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. RockManQReview me 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. A little too much politics, not enough encyclopedia building. AgneCheese/Wine 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Atmoz (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose at the strongest point ever. --Mixwell!Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ҉ Sorry :) --Mixwell!Talk 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you can't vote twice. miranda 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I was going to be one of his strongest supporters, but oppose over his recent actions which show he's quick to give excessive credence to what certain people say and spread it in some of the most public venues on wiki, prolonging a dispute/contratemps. (to clarify, I mean the "conspiracy?" (against Giano) allegations, essentially Durova's point. I didn't even realise he was part of the SlRubenstein RfC- that puts extra icing on the cake that wasn't even needed. Sticky Parkin 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I've seen this user "resolving" disputes - I don't want to see them as an Arbitrator. GRBerry 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Captain panda 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose BJTalk 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Someone who was involved one of the biggest dramas of the past year should not be running for a position of power this soon. People still remember this and it sits absolutely horribly with me. Mike H. Fierce! 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. My overall impression of Jehochman is positive - he strikes me as a mature and capable administrator. But he's altogether too prone to drama, and more importantly, his positive qualities are better suited for other areas of Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose: For serious past judgement mistakes. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Like Master Expert, and some others here, I have a generally positive experience of him as a fellow admin. But in the past I have felt he was too close, too protective of some other editors and admins I wound up enmeshed in drama with. So I feel, and these oppose votes bear this feeling out, that enough of the community cannot see him as adequately impartial for me to feel comfortable putting him in an Arbitrator's chair. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. While I think he means well (and generally does a good job), I don't think he has the temperament for ArbCom work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose For various reasons stated by others. لennavecia 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Rebecca (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, wrong temperament, wrong views on BLP and ArbCom making policy, wrong candidate for the position. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - we need fire extinguishers, not more fuel. // roux   editor review10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Per Durova. Less drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. — neuro(talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - I like Jehochman, but he seems far too willing to tolerate disruption from established users for me to support. Ronnotel (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Per Durova and Cla68 --B (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Absolutely Not By far one of the biggest drama mongers running for the committee. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose per Alecmconroy. Dengero (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose - too quick to judge. I was involved in a misunderstanding with another editor and Jehochman said I "very well might be a troll" based solely on the word of that other editor. After I calmly explained the situation he did concede my position, but an arbitrator needs to reserve judgement until he knows all the facts. ATren (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Poor attitude re BLP--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Catchpole (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Oppose When I asked Jehochman to remove a derogatory comment about me from an other editors page he told me to ignore it, when the mediator who was dealing with my mediation removed it he warned him about removing it and went on to protect the page with offending comment still on it. BigDuncTalk 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jehochman&oldid=255271723"