Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jehochman

While I like Jehochman, I'm a little worried that he's a bit too overly bureaucratic at times. For instance, in

If you check the noticeboard you will see that ScienceApologist started a couple of threads shortly after he received a topic ban.[1][2] He has simultaneously engaged in

Arbitration enforcement is not watched by as many editors so it tends to be better for solving problems, and much less of a risk for instigating drama. That is why I made my recommendation to go there instead. I also requested, several times, that diffs be posted to substantiate the accusations. Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I want to add one more thought: we need to be very careful to base blocks (and unblocks) on sound evidence and procedures. Generally we like to avoid bureaucracy, because any mistakes on wiki can easily be corrected. However, when a user is unjustly blocked, there might be no way to fully repair their hurt feelings. For that reason, I advocate a rigourous approach when blocking or unblocking to ensure a high degree of accuracy. It is worth spending a little extra time filling out the correct "paperwork" before implementing a block to make sure we get it right. Jehochman ^Talk 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that conversely, a tenancy towards being what is often perceived as bureaucratic in the course of one's on-Wiki work may itself be indicative of a thorough and meticulous Arbitrator.

AGK 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. Re Durova's oppose - what were you thinking !!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Less! Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's vote

I find Durova's mention of "the controversial Elonka recall drive" very ironic because she also was one of the people who endorsed the recall with her deep regret over her nomination of Elonka's RFA.--Caspian blue 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made the tough decision to endorse the call for preexisting reasons, despite serious misgivings about how early it was in the RFC. Normally the community affords an experienced member sufficient time to respond to concerns before initiating decisive action. Jehochman made a similar premature call for a community ban when the Mantanmoreland RFC had barely begun. Banning turned out to be the right decision ultimately, but MM hadn't yet had a chance at defense. I stood up against Jehochman's premature call on that occasion, although later when matters were clear I initiated Mantanmoreland's community ban myself. If you were in Elonka's position or Mantanmoreland's, would you want this man initiating decisions before you could defend yourself? If you wish to discuss more please continue on talk. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer, but I did not ask about the RFC on Mantanmoreland, but mentioned about your position for the recall on Elonka. But as for the RFC, he was quite proven correct with his hunch.--Caspian blue 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice at that recall bid, before I commented the threshold for Elonka's recall pledge had already been exceeded by a considerable margin. So I was not starting a crisis but responding to one. By then the credibility of administrative recall was at stake. The best interests of the site are better served by upholding a voluntary recall process that has meaning, than the outcome of any one recall drive--even one that has been gamed. That isn't the same as endorsing the gaming, although it's a fine distinction and I understand how it could appear. I don't want an arbitrator who creates situations where such fine distinctions become necessary. That recall bid would have had a lot more credibility if the RFC had run for a normal span of time, with a fair period for evidence and discussion on both sides. The site's best interests aren't served by his hunches. I don't give a man credit for insight if he's right when he flips a coin. Durova^Charge! 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I still can't find a plausible excuse for your endorsement; you felt that the process and way were wrong, but you weighed in your thought on the recall. Because it was already going way beyond your ability to fix them, you rather chose the wrong one in the messy situation? I have tried to find valid point to either support or oppose him from your statement, but I only find the contradiction in your examples. Of course, the community is not operated by his hunches, but well, the Mantanmoreland case wasted many people's time too much and his hunches were from his long experience from RFCU and SSP cases. That is a valuable asset.--Caspian blue 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's initiation of recall on me was inappropriate, because I had not abused tools, and there was absolutely no consensus at the RfC that I should resign my adminship. The RfC was started by ChrisO (talk · contribs), who was unhappy that I was imposing ArbCom restrictions on him in the topic area of Israel/Palestine articles. Then once the RfC got going, of course many other editors who were under ArbCom sanctions also came in with their own complaints. However, the strong community consensus from the RfC (check the number of people who endorsed my version of events, vs. the number of people who endorsed ChrisO's version of events), was that I had acted properly in regards to him. Of course, the RfC wasn't all a big glowing Elonka lovefest, and there were indeed some criticisms of my actions, with good faith concerns about both the types of discretionary sanctions that I had been using on certain articles, and the number of second chances that I was giving to some editors who might not deserve as many extra chances as I was offering. I listened closely to the concerns and criticisms, to see how I could further improve my ArbCom enforcement efforts in the future. But even given all that, there was still no significant theme in the RfC at any time, that implied I should resign my adminship. So it didn't matter whether the RfC was new or old, Jehochman's attempt to get me to resign was still just more pot-stirring. I understand Durova's reasons for endorsing the recall, especially as she herself was also an ex-admin. So as she had stepped down during controversy, she wanted me to do the same. I disagreed with her reasoning, but that's water under the bridge. The main thing we're debating here now, is whether Jehochman would be a good choice as an arbitrator. And I think it's valuable information for others, to note that though Durova and I disagree strongly on various other things around Wikipedia, that when it comes to Jehochman we are both in strong agreement, that he is absolutely not someone who should be an arbitrator. --Elonka 16:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, as you know that I'm not a big fan of Jehochman's conducts on PHG and have disagree with him in several occasions. However, I'm not persuaded by the two strongest allegations raised by you and Durova. Many voices tell you that you should've not enforced to ChrisO, who is a fellow admin and was doing his duty to clean up inappropriate contents from the article under ArbCom probation. ArbCom did not endorse to you to do so. He tried to resolve things with you many times on your talk page, but which failed, so he took it to the formal DR. If it were not a legitimate one, it would not be authorized by other editors. You refused the RFC from the start without a valid reason and requested to delete it to your friend. That causes "a big controversy". After that, Jehochman requested the recall. It would've looked better if somebody had raised it instead of him, but as you know, the recall is not even a first one. The allegation of a history of his harassment rather constitutes a serious personal attack to him (which not only strongly affects his candidacy, but also challenges his integrity as an admin and editor). You failed to prove you being right on the IRC admin-shopping with no evidence. There should be at least one diff other admins said such on Wikipedia, but the diffs with which you assert to prove your alleged "harassment" are all from your friends. Besides, you can't let go of the conflict, and every time pertinent to him comes up, you always appear to denounce him. Your above comment on Durova's reason for the recall stemmed from her status is inappropriate as well.--Caspian blue 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't desysopped, Caspian. I was open for recall and I resigned. Elonka sums that up pretty well. Regarding the rest, let's respectfully disagree. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no reason to prolong our disagreement.--Caspian blue 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of Elonka's RfC by wizardman pointed out flaws in Elonka's conduct, with particular reference to the points made by Slrubenstein and myself. I don't know whether Elonka ever read that summary, but it seems quite at odds with her own gloss on the findings of the RfC. Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only statement of an actual consensus in Wizardman's close of the Elonka RfC was this: "In terms of how she handled the situation with ChrisO, the consensus appears to be that her actions are justified in that instance." That seems pretty clear. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's vote

Discussion moved from main voting page.

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]

Could provide evidences for the "IRC admin-shopping? Besides, is the allegation of a history of on-wiki harassment referring to your long-term conflicts with him including his recall of your adminship? If the series of your friction were truly a harassment, why 37 people in good standing put their name for the request? Also Durova who nominated your RFA endorsed the recall.--Caspian blue 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• I believe that Elonka's vote fails to disclose the full extent of our past interactions. Naturally she would be motivated to vote against me after I had lead a recall request against her that garnered 37 endorsements. However, I consider this matter to be closed, and request that other voters not belabor the arguments that were raised during the recall. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Jehochman, you are failing to disclose the full story of that recall. I see you often repeat the number "37", but you fail to acknowledge my response, nor to state the number of people that opposed the recall. This kind of one-sided description of events simply reinforces my reason for opposing. --Elonka 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, 50 opposed the recall, though your recall criteria that you stated at RFA was just 6 in support, and there was no mention of any consideration of oppose votes. I am willing to agree that your recall criteria was unwisely lenient and that you should be let off the hook on your promise, but I'd like you to show a bit more assumption of good faith towards me. I have no interest in perpetuating a conflict, but if my reputation is impugned, I will respond. Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed-out. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]