Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jehochman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Jehochman

Final (74/3/7); Originally scheduled to end 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 23:17, 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)

[edit] 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.
Question from Dorftrottel
5. For admins in particular it's important to know core policy by heart, but I always felt that only reading the articles can grant one that awe-inspiring insight into what Wikipedia really is about that I associate at least with my own fondness of the project. So my questions are: How many of our featured articles have you read? And of all the pages of Wikipedia (not only FA's), which are your favourites (you're welcome to name multiple, and not only articles)? — Dorf⁠, was: AldeBaer 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
My edit count would be much higher if I didn't spend so much time reading articles. When visiting people's user pages I frequently read the featured articles they've contributed to. Today I happened upon The Bus Uncle Featured article, and then went to 2003 Baghdad DHL shootdown incident, Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces, and United Airlines Flight 232. I have read hundreds of our Astronomy articles, recently Sagittarius A* and Magnetar. I also enjoy biographies such as Sophie Scholl. It hard to pick out just a few as favorites. These come to mind among the ones I've read recently. - Jehochman Talk 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Melsaran
6. What are your views on WP:BITE and the issue of problematic newbies and trolls? How much leniency should we give POV pushers or edit warriors, and how many warnings should we hand out before blocking someone?
When users first came to Wikipedia, they often make mistakes. Our goal is never to block somebody. No, we want them to stick around and make valuable contributions. A typical newbie will usually say they are sorry and stop spamming or writing articles about themselves after one or two warnings. I typically use {{welcomespam}} or {{welcome}} and {{uw-coi}} in these cases. I've always left a welcome for new users, even if they've done something incorrect. The templates are gently worded. The number of warnings provided before we give up depends on the volume of disruptive editing, and whether the user is responsive but confused, or if the user clearly knows what they are doing and just chooses to ignore us. For an example of a determined COI editor who refuses to heed warnings, see this plea on my talk page and this case on the COI Noticeboard. Who do we protect? The COI editor who claims to be the webmaster for Toto (band) who has been whitewashing that article, or the good faith editor who is trying to improve the article but can't because the other editor is violating WP:COI and WP:OWN? In this case the COI editor has had three clear warnings, yet continues to make the problematic edits. He may need a block. Unlike this case, if a newbie answers the warnings but continues to make mistakes, I would give even more warnings and might recommend mentorship if they have problems understanding how to work with Wikipedia. Cluelessness doesn't merit a block. Patient mentorship is the cure.
For POV pushers and edit warriors I would typically leave the full range of four warnings. However, edit warring can lead to three revert rule situations. For a clearcut fourth revert within 24 hours, the user may get a short block. This is applied uniformly to all editors. I've been a member of the Harmonious editing club for a while, and I observe 1RR. I recommend this club to editors who are having problems with 3RR. There's no reason to ever risk a 3RR block.
My approach is a combination of warnings plus helpful advice and mentorship, switching to blocks only if there is evidence of bad faith, gaming the system, or an obvious case of >3 reverts within 24 hours, no legal threats or some other extreme circumstance such as threats of violence or blatant harassment.
Optional Question from User:Yahel Guhan
7. After reading through this discussion, I noticed you are in dispute over these Elonka Dunin articles. What is your opinion on this issue, and what do you think would be the best way to resolve the dispute?
A: I think that any editor who has good faith concerns about the notability of these subjects should list them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Once the discussions have concluded, all parties should respect the consensus. Conflict of interest editing, by itself, is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. - Jehochman Talk 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
7b. Follow up question. What exactly is your involvement in this issue and how have you gone about working toward resolving this dispute (or have you been working toward resolving it)?
A: The history of the Matt57-Elonka dispute is long and complex. Anyone who would like to ask me about it can contact me via my talk page or email. This RFA format doesn't provide enough space to do this question justice. My involvement in the case is tangential, and I would strongly urge both parties to seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to solve their disagreement rather than using tactics that go outside of that process.- Jehochman Talk 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Question from User:Fahrenheit451
8. I am not satisfied with the answer you gave me in our brief discussion below, so I will ask the question another way: In this instance [21] where I politely posted a brief question on your talk page to clarify something you said to another user in a discussion I was a participant of, you refused to answer the question and removed the question from your talk page. If you are elected an admin, will you do this sort of thing more, less, or not at all?--Fahrenheit451 02:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
A I don't know. Uncertain, the future is. - Jehochman Talk 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment That uncertainty seems to indicate an issue you have that would interfere with ethical adminship. Just confirms my opposition.--Fahrenheit451 03:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Piotrus

9. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
A I have intended to do so because many of the admins I respect are already members of that list. There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain. - Jehochman Talk 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

  • Comment I find it somewhat disturbing that Matt57 was blocked for the "incivility" of suggesting that he would oppose this RfA.[22] What will people be blocked for if it succeeds? I'd like to hear Jehochman's opinion on this: should editors who oppose your request for adminship be blocked?Proabivouac 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    The full context of Matt57's block and consensus for it can be found in the WP:ANI archives (Ongoing Harassment by Matt57) for those unfamiliar with the issues. WjBscribe 04:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not asking about the "full context" (e.g. that he'd been blocked twice in a row for things it turned out he didn't actually do,) but only this one question, and I'm asking the candidate: should Matt57's suggestion that he would recommend against granting your request for adminship have been given as a reason for his block, or otherwise held against him?Proabivouac 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I realise you weren't asking about the full context - I just chose to link to it in case anyone was interested. No big deal :-) ... WjBscribe 05:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Matt57 was blocked for tendentiously picking fights. His threat on my talk page was the final may have been the precipitating incident, but I doubt he would have been blocked for that alone. As I said, "RfA blackballing is a disgusting tactic that should not be tolerated. 'Agree with me, or I'll vote against you,' has a chilling effect on editors and harms the encyclopedia." - Jehochman Talk 05:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I have copied the above section to the talk page. As I read the current situation it warrants further discussion, these may not be 100% relevant to this RFA. Gnangarra 11:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note as a bureaucrat I have moved the below comments to the comments section because blocked users cannot participate in an RfA except to comment. They can only provide information, not have a say in the outcome. Per discussion on WP:BN and common sense. Otherwise this amounts to Proabivouac having two voices in this RfA. - Taxman Talk 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose: Jehochman could not provide a non-biased opinion over the Elonka articles affair and instead choose to assume bad faith and attack me instead of talking about the article in question. In this case, Jehochman allowed emotions to rule over logic and rationale. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I have reposted from Matt57's user talk page.Proabivouac 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I note that Matt57 is presently blocked from editing for 1 month due to ongoing harassment of other editors. WjBscribe 04:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    "Ongoing harassment" is Jehochman's own dramatic phrase, not the stated reason for the block (or, for that matter, any kind of reasonable analysis.) What was given as a reason for the block was Matt57's comment re this RfA.Proabivouac 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Oh was it his phrase? I meant it to be my phrase (it certainly seems accurate to me). I freely admit I'm biased though - I invite people to reach their own interpretation of the discussion if they feel it is relevant to this RfA.... WjBscribe 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    It was.[23] Jehochman wrote, "RfA blackballing is a disgusting tactic that should not be tolerated," which might sound vaguely high-minded, were he not speaking of his own candidacy. See his angry reaction, which preceded by four minutes his post to the noticeboard.[24]Proabivouac 05:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Are blocked editors allowed to vote in an RfA? There seems to be a difference of opinion on that question, so a pointer to a specific policy page or arbcom finding would be helpful. Raymond Arritt 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    I prefer Matt57's oppose comment to stay. - Jehochman Talk 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Unless they are indefinitely blocked, such users are still members of the community, and have a voice in these matters. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Matt57 was very disruptive at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2. Matt seems to use RFA as a soapbox to retaliate at editors who disagree with him. One of the reasons for his present monthlong block was a declaration of intent to do so. DurovaCharge! 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    He's still allowed to speak his mind in at least a single statement of oppose like this. I don't agree with his judgement here, but no one has to be perfect to participate in an RfA. Just because someone gets too worked up sometimes, doesn't mean they have no legitimate concern at all. You are free to speculate why he feels the way he does, but you are not free to exclude him. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Whether or not to exclude him is the bureaucrat's decision. I've provided relevant evidence for that person and for other potential voters here to consider. Matt declared that he links Jehochman to Elonka and he declared in advance that his participation here would be retaliatory. I have grave misgivings about anyone who attempts to politicize RFA to that degree. DurovaCharge! 13:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, fair enough. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

[edit] 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. DurovaCharge! 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)
    I missed a nominee, (oops...mistake, sorry!) but Sarah's judgment is clearly highly trusted. :) Acalamari 03:27, 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)
  15. Way Beyond the Strongest Possible Support. Jehochman has so proved he's ready to be an admin. In fact, the previous work he's done as an editor puts to shame the work done by most admins. --Alabamaboy 02:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support St. Jehochman move over Jimbo able to work with both sides of the Scientology discussion, still retains sanity even more suprising still editing with civility, that means he's either a bot or a saint since Sarah nominated him he must a saint. Gnangarra 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) withdrawn support, changed to neutral Gnangarra 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I am confident that this user will make a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support From what I'm seeing, this user is already trusted and has a good amount of edits in all the spaces. Regards, Ανέκδοτο 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Per User:Useight. Folic_Acid 03:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Should do just fine. Responsible editor. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Good luck --Benchat 05:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. east.718 at 07:23, October 5, 2007
  22. Solid candidate, solid nominator, what else can we ask for? El_C 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. What I've seen of this user looks fine. David Underdown 08:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - an excellent candidate who I more than trust with the tools. Good work. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - the volume of contributions speaks for itself. Onward with the 'pedia building.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. A quality candidate here my friends. —Moondyne 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, no real concerns. Knowlege of SEO stuff already proving very useful. Neil ム 10:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support In my experience this user has the qualities needed to do the job - shows good faith and acts on the evidence (even if the evidence changes and forces a rethink). I believe this user will do a good job with the tools. Orderinchaos 13:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Support. Worked with Jonathan a few times now, and each instance has been incredibly pleasant and educational. • Lawrence Cohen 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. The candidate and I don't see eye to eye about everything, but from his actions so far I trust his judgment and integrity. I become daily more convinced that such trust is the only good reason for supporting a request for adminship. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC).
  31. No reason not to. MER-C 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no significant issues. The concerns raised by the oppose and neutral commenters, which confirm that the candidate has waded into some thick waters and controversial areas in his time on Wikipedia. No one doing this work is going to be perfect, and the overall picture is one of very positive contributions. Newyorkbrad 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Cliche support. Thought he was admin already. •CHILLDOUBT• 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. 'Support - Seen this user contributions and his work in the noticeboards. Give him the bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Strong Support - User looks great to me Dustihowe 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support He seems like he'll be trustworthy admin and won't abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Strong support per Satori Son[25], Durova[26], and EdJohnston[27]-- there's not much that I can add; one of 2007's best candidates. --A. B. (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. Hemmingsen 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support — I see no inclination this user will abuse the tools. Everyone should have tools by default, and they should only be removed if they are abused. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the Wiki, the damage such a policy would cause would be tremendous. As a result, I opt for the much weaker criterion of "will the user exercise the tools in a reasonable and intelligent manner"? I think this user will. --Haemo 19:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Excellent contributor.this shows that you are quite unbiased.--WriterListener 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support: Good content contributions, experience in dealing with controversial topics and staying cool, interested in working in important and understaffed areas... sounds good to me. MastCell Talk 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. If he's got Matt57 opposing, must be doing something right. Seems like a good chap overall. Moreschi Talk 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  43. I oppose this user because he does not fit my criteria in support. The user must have 200 FAs to his name, 500 GAs, an edit count of 250,000 with exactly 50% in mainspace. The username of this user also doesn't have J.W imprinted on it, so I question his dedication. Also I don't trust the nominator Sarah, who has previously nominated some rouge admins such as Daniel, and puppetmasters such as Riana. Long Live The Cabal!! --DarkFalls talk 00:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. I'm surprised I hadn't already supported this. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Oppose arguments are not convincing enough. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support--MONGO 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Good editor. --Folantin 08:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  48. Yes, of course. — Dorf⁠, was: AldeBaer 09:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  49. Member of the better class of users. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support No outstanding issues left after his response below. Seems like he has a firm grib on policy, no reason to believe that he will be anymore rouge than what is or should be required of an administrator. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 15:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support More than qualified. Adminship isn't that big a deal. --Sharkface217 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. No problems with this candidate. Quite qualified. Majoreditor 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - I have encountered this user before, and while we disagreed at first and things did not start as well as they could have, I was impressed enough with how things ended that I must support. --After Midnight 0001 11:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - Remains generally calm & civil under pressure, will do well with the mop --Versageek 13:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support John254 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Impressed that the candidate didn't rush into RFA, but patiently took his time instead, gathering experience and undergoing coaching. Tries to de-escalate conflict and drama with a tone and attitude I would appreciate as an involved antagonist. His SEO knowledge and WP:COI skills belong aboard the adminship. No history of abuse, and none in sight. Finally, though I never participated in the discussion at WP:CN, I was grateful that Jehochman brought user:Ideogram's timewasting puppetry and other behavior to the wider community's attention. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Not impressive, but pretty ok. Misou 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Definitely needs the tools and will use them well. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support (Forget User:Ideogram!) For the way he recently managed to convince himself that something he had been dead sure of, was not really correct. We need people who can change their mind. --Pan Gerwazy 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Strong candidate. Particularly liked your answer to Q3. --Dweller 11:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support NHRHS2010 Talk 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. I think I have misunderstood your comments in those discussions, because the answer to Q5 is pretty impressive and displays a good grasp of how we should deal with newbies. I am confident that Jehochman will use his administrator tools to the benefit of the encyclopaedia with his best judgement. Good luck. Melsaran (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support - Per nom and above. Dureo 03:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  64. Strong support - very useful editor at WP:AfD and WP:COIN. I would trust him 100 % with the mop. Bearian 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support - great experience in all the relevant and necessary areas. Fine candidate. Lradrama 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support Everything looks fine now. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support When I first met Jehochman I had concern over his over-enthusiastic use of what are supposed to be escalating warnings on User:COFS' talk page. He then followed that by urging an editor to take a COI complaint with COFS to the community sanction noticeboard, leading to a no-resolution there and to an long, time-consuming arbitration that basically did the work that the WP:COIN could have done in the first place (IMO). So why am I supporting him? To be honest, I think I saw Jehochman mature over the course of that arbitration and realize that issues are sometimes (often?) more complex than they at first seem. Jehochman has shown a willingness to understand and address difficult issues that can only help the project. I am concerned a bit about what might be an exclusionary attitude, his use of "we" in instances like this to denote what I presume to be "THE ADMINS", of which I know that he wants to be a part. I think he will learn that admins put their pants on one pixel at a time just like the rest of us and I sincerely hope that he does not harbor any ideas that THE ADMINS are somehow superior to us "regular" editors or that wikipedia is divided into WE, THE ADMINS and "the rest". That would be unfortunate. I am, however, inclined to give him the chance he wants. --Justanother 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  68. I support this editor and trust he will make a good admin, although he probably knows that I'm ill at ease over his handling of some Elonka-related disputes. I'm sure he knows that none is infallible. And of course his exposure of Ideogram's antics is very appreciated. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  70. The links Durova provided below that showed Jehochman taking an exceptionally pro-active stance on eliminating vandalism proves, in my opinion, that we'd benefit from his having the tools. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support per convincing reasons given by supporters; not convinced by opposers. I believe Jehochman will benefit Wikipedia with the admin tools, especially since he's willing to work in the more confusing areas of administrative activity. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. I have seen only good work on-wiki from Jehochman. What residual doubts I had are addressed by his answers to questions. As a side note, I heartily oppose attempts by some of those opposing to hijack this RfA to air their grievances on totally unrelated matters. Editors standing at RfA are more open than most to such unpleasant tactics - they are rather expect to smile humbly while people throw rocks at them. WjBscribe 10:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed. Neither Wikipedia as a whole, nor other individuals, are at RfA at the moment. The candidate we are discussing is Jehochman, and him only. I ditto Will above in noting my objection "by some of those opposing to hijack this RfA to air their grievances on totally unrelated matters", and ask that the bureaucrats give this due weight if such an action is required for this discussion is to be closed as 'promote'. Daniel 10:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support I have confidence that he will do a good job, based on many of the reasons stated above. Tiggerjay 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support See nothing that makes me think this candidate will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose (struck for now pending answer to question #6). Sorry, Jehochman, you are a good editor, but I am afraid that if you are promoted, you may just be a little too bitish and block newbies or "trolls" too quickly, and I don't think we need more admins like that. Diffs such as [28], [29], [30] and [31] are a little concerning. Melsaran (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You've cited two comments I made on a policy discussion, and a few diffs that show me investigating suspected sock puppets of disruptive editor who has been sitebanned. I think it's very important to be polite to everyone, especially newbies. I take your comments to heart, and if you ever see me bite a newbie, please let me know. - Jehochman Talk 13:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this RFA is going to succeed, and you really are a good editor, but I'm just not confident enough that you will always do the right thing when dealing with problematic newbies, sorry. That's why I stand by a (weak) oppose, however, good luck with your RFA, and I'll be sure to give you some feedback if you'd appreciate it :) Melsaran (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't be shy. I have a lot of respect for you. - Jehochman Talk 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The Art of SEO For Wikipedia uses a lot of information from User:Jehochman. Here is one piece of advice from him: "Hochman says that newbies shouldn't just jump into a high profile entry and start editing it—that page will get lots of scrutiny. Similarly, don't place an entry that you are working on into a high profile category straight away, as that will also attract a lot of scrutiny since high profile categories are monitored by a lot of people." I'm not comfortable with aspiring Wikipedia admins giving corporate editors advice on how to avoid scrutiny. Haukur 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify this situation. I didn't write or edit that article. As usual, second hand reports aren't perfectly accurate. My advice wasn't to avoid scrutiny, no. My advice was that newcomers should pick a modest article to begin to avoid frustration. If somebody makes the typical newbie edit to a high profile or featured article, for instance, they are very likely to make a mistake, get reverted and have a bad first experience. Working on a lower profile article can be less stressful for a newbie. Additionally, the article was based on an interview I gave over 9 months ago, when I knew a lot less about Wikipedia than I do now, so please take that into consideration. - Jehochman Talk 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That article has been up since May. Have you sent in a correction? Haukur 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I did. On May 3, 2007 I posted a comment to the article, stating "the reason I recommend Wiki noobs start with a minor article is to avoid the frustration of having edits reverted immediately. A low traffic article gives new editors a chance to make mistakes without getting into trouble right away." I hope you will reconsider your opposition. - Jehochman Talk 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that one. I would have preferred a more explicit correction - this sounds more like you were expanding on your previous comments rather than making it clear that you had been misunderstood. I would also have preferred you asking the author of the article to make an inline correction (most people will read the article itself and skim or ignore the comments). Nevertheless I think this makes opposition based on this quote untenable. Haukur 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I will ask for that change because we don't want readers to take away the wrong idea. - Jehochman Talk 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Matt57 -- Karl Meier 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hi, we've never met before. Sorry you feel that way. I just want to note that it looks like you were canvassed here and that you stated an intention to retaliate there. - Jehochman Talk 23:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Jehochman. I have noticed your aggressive tone before, and I must say that your continued extremely aggressive approach on this RfA has confirmed my believe that you are not fit for adminship. Oh, and please stop making up any false allegations about me making "threats". It seems to be a tactic that you use a bit too often to intimidate, and attempt to get people blocked with if they dare to disagree with you and your personal wishes. I have one piece of advise for you: If you want to be a responsible administrator, perhaps you should start by reading WP:Civil -- Karl Meier 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    And for the record: The other accusation that you raise against me, as an apparent attempt to retaliate against me because I have dared to oppose your adminship, is also false. I have not - as you accuse me of- been "canvassed". The message that you refer to was regarding a template that argue against what I and a number of editors believe was an unfair block. You and your behavior was not being mentioned in the message, and was posted several days before your RfA started, so that is clearly another false accusation. I strongly suggest that you stop making up false accusations immediately, and I strongly object to your aggressive comments and attempts to retaliate against those making critical comments here. -- Karl Meier 08:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    I have not and would not propose any actions against you Karl Meier. I was simply documenting the circumstances so your opinion could be placed in context by those unfamiliar with the situation.- Jehochman Talk 14:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    I see no "intention to retaliate" there. A much better example of retaliation is here. What kind of calculus have we established by which oblique "threats" to do something are considered uncivil, while actually going ahead and doing much worse is not? What if Karl had said, "Jehochman, if you oppose my RfA, I'll report you to ANI and get you blocked for a month?" Would that be uncivil? Or should we believe that one oppose to an RfA uncivil, but blocking someone for a month isn't? Which would you rather be done to you? Matt57's oppose is right there above, and you've showed the class not to remove it. Are you being "blackballed" or "harassed?" No, you're probably going to be an admin, while your opposer is still megablocked. Meaning no sarcasm whatsoever, I invite to be chivalrous and urge that he be unblocked. Opposing your request for adminship isn't a crime. You are the powerful and well-connected one in this equation; it is unbecoming of a man to play the victim while bullying and blocking his weaker opponents.Proabivouac 08:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Jehochman didn't open that thread; I did. I didn't ask him his opinion before I acted and I opened it primarily because Matt57 was being disruptive at my user talk page as a culmination of problematic behavior that had continued since late summer. I requested independent review and action by uninvolved sysops. The community decided on the block, not either of us, and the community decided its duration. Even editors who had opposed Elonka's RFA supported that block. If you've got a bone to pick over that, don't vent on Jehochman. Take it to WP:RFAR or open an admin conduct WP:RFC on me. DurovaCharge! 14:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Proabivouac, you and I have met before and always been civil to each other. I asked for Matt57's comment to remain even before Ned Scott made his remarks. Opposing isn't a problem. Threating to do so in order to gain leverage in some other dispute is. For the record, I would support unblocking Matt57 if he demonstrates an understanding of why he was blocked and makes a sincere indication that he will not repeat the problem. Mentorship might be one way to go. Keep in mind that there was broad consensus at the ANI thread that resulted in Matt57's block, and that his unblock requests were denied. He's still free to appeal to Arbcom if he feels that the block was unjust. If so, I encourage him to email an Arbcom member or clerk to request help. - Jehochman Talk 13:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I object to Jehochman being an admin as it appears he has some conflict of interest issues. For example:
    This looks like a solicitation to do search engine optimization for the Church of ScientologyAt least one of these links was not linkspam as he allegedHochman did not state to whom he was referingWhen I politely asked him who he was refering to, he refused to discuss it
    I don't think he should be given admin powers at this time.--Fahrenheit451 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    F451 is one of the editors who has been involved in a series of Scientology content disputes where I was trying to prevent COI editing by the Church of Scientology. I can state that I have never done business with the CoS, nor would I ever take them as a client. F451, does this help clear up any misconceptions? Do you have any other questions that I can answer? - Jehochman Talk 00:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Jehochman, I too, am interested in preventing COI editing of the Scientology articles. In fact, I diverted myself from voting method articles for that reason. I provided three other examples above which you did not discuss in your answer. Now, who is the "We" you were refering to and why did you terminate a polite request about this? --Fahrenheit451 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    'We' referred to the Wikipedia Community, all of us. Sorry if I didn't answer your question before. Go ahead, you want to ask me whether I think a particular source is spam--which one are you referring to? - Jehochman Talk 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Jehochman, You are not the spokesman for the Wikipedia Community. That is misrepresentation. You did not answer why you terminated a polite discussion I started, and went so far as to Remove my request from your talk page. On the alleged linkspam, the idenics.com website is an established freezone group. The aberee does not look like linkspam to me and is freezone-related. Back to you, trusting you will answer my questions this time. --Fahrenheit451 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    F451, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming to be a spokesman for the Wikipedia community. The point of my comment, "We will handle it," is that I have faith in the community handling conflicts. You have had longstanding content disputes with User:Shutterbug, f/k/a User:COFS, and friends. I was trying to convince you to stop fighting with them. I removed your posts from my talk page because at the time I thought you were not dealing with me in good faith. You can prove me wrong--right now--by accepting these answers at face value. Third answer: Website idenics.com does not look like a reliable source, nor an appropriate external link. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia would link to this non-notable site. I hope you are satisfied with these answers and will reconsider your opinion of me. - Jehochman Talk 02:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Jehochman, again, you were de facto acting as a spokesman for the "Wikipedia Community" and you are not that. You can only speak for yourself. My one post on your talk page asking you a question was polite and your removal of it was a violation of WP:AGF. The Idenics website is notable and is certainly reliable source about itself. It is not being used to quote on anything else. The ArbCom did a good job at handling the problems with User:Shutterbug. Your bad faith removal of my polite question to you did nothing to assist the ArbCom's work. It does indicate what kind of an admin you will be, therefore I oppose it.--Fahrenheit451 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Fahrenheit451, after examing the links you provided, I see no evidence to back up your claims. Jehochman has worked on a number of contentious issues while at Wikipedia, including the issues surrounding links in the Scientology article. It appears you didn't like this work and began to harass him. When an editor harasses another editor, the harassed editor is under no obligation to respond. Please do not carry this nonissue into this RfA. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    User:Alabamaboy. My comments were addressed to Jehochman, not you. Your conclusions about my opinion of Jehochman's work are false conclusions. There is no evidence or pattern of harassment by myself and view your comments as uncivil. I suggest you keep your "nonissue" out of this RfA.--Fahrenheit451 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    ...and that just established an axe to grind for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    EVula, the hostile comments you advertise on your user page seems sequitur with that comment. Bad habit.--Fahrenheit451 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose per this undue disruption of an already very complicated ArbCom case in his pursuit to have Ideogram banned. The case was already on the community sanction board, there was no need for Jehochman to interfere with that case other than to hound Ideogram. An administrator should carry out his work with the least amount of noise and disruption and I'm afraid that Jehochman has not quite understood this. Changed to support EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 07:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    None of the arbitrators or clerks who saw my comment complained it, and User:Jossi recommended that I add my evidence to the case, so I wasn't being frivolous. Nevertheless, your point about carrying out work with the least amount of fuss is valid. I am sorry if I could have handled that better, and if you want to explain what I should have done, I am all ears. - Jehochman Talk 13:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Basically what I would have liked to see was that you had kept the matter to the community sanction board where it was already being thoroughly discussed and dealt with according to policy and common sense. Your complaint against Ideogram was unrelated to the case which was/is already complicated enough. I'm relieved to see that you appear to agree with me. If we can agree on this I'll change my vote to support. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 14:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think I got a little over excited. That was the first time I had handled such a case. - Jehochman Talk 15:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. Changed to support. Best of luck with the tools. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 15:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Not only does the idea of a SEO guy doing COI "investigations" bug the hell out of me -- if you ask me, it's a meta-COI --, but also Jehochman's pronounciations in Petri Krohn's RFC/U, as well as elsewhere, were more than a little bizarre and rather self-contradictionary. I'm concerned that Jehochman may put allegiance in front of policy in matters of his own conflict of interest, and as such, I can not, in good conscience, vote anything else than oppose at this time. (As a specific example, see the User talk:Bishonen incident cited by Nishkid64.) Perhaps after another year ... ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    Actually his knowledge of the field has been an invaluable help to COI investigations. For example, in this thread, further explained here, he caught a script-driven black hat SEO attack and identified that it was trying to evade scrutiny by shifting proxy IP addresses. Jehochman's familiarity with the field (which players are honest, which ones aren't, and the tactics of the fly-by-night crowd) made it possible to nip that in the bud. Had the attack been successful, others would likely have followed. DurovaCharge! 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your point, and have considered it before determining my position. While I do understand this kind of experience can be useful, continued business in SEO means he has financial incentives to turn a blind eye towards some SEO approaches, and non-financial Wikipedia-incentives to attain neutrality. This is a strong conflict of interest, and I am worried about how Jehochman may decide to solve this conflict. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 11:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, there are some methods of search engine optimization that improve Wikipedia and are fully compliant with site policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is a top ten website and the business community pays attention to us. Simply working in an industry doesn't constitute conflict of interest any more than general contributions to articles about education would be conflict of interest for a teacher. That's expertise. DurovaCharge! 04:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Except that for a teacher contributing on Wikipedia, there wouldn't be conflicting motivations. Teacher's hat or editor's hat, the goals are consistent.
    Perhaps a better analogy to draw is that of separation of powers. An experienced lawyer can usually work just as well as a judge or as a legislator; an experienced politician can usually work just as well as a legislator or as an executive. But in the Western post-Enlightenment governance practice, it's usually considered to be a bad idea to let one person to serve in such separate capabilities at once. In a number of situations requiring particular expertise outside their primary field of use, retired judges and retired generals are used. Why? If you understand this, you should understand a major reason why I feel I must oppose in this RfA. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 08:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm still not grasping the nature of this opposition. It just dosen't feel its components add up to a cohesive premise. El_C 08:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    I have several reasons to oppose, as I explained above. They're somewhat separate but related; you may be mistaking the relation as a hint that they should make a single argument. This is not the case. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 09:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Separation of powers is not relevant here. Adminship is not a big deal, just some tools. It is not like a judge and a lawyer, but more like a lollipop man and an ordinary member of the public. If you have any reason to suspect that User:Jehochman has committed COI on SEO, or is planning to use his adminship to do that, say so now and indicate why. Your objection looks like an extreme case of WP:POINT. What if I said that under COI, Estonians and Russians should stop editing articles on Estonian-Russian relations? --Pan Gerwazy 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    I would denounce trolling and declar this thraed over. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. Your edits today at Bishonen's talk page were a little confusing. Why did you keep telling Until(1==2) to drop the matter? It was a legitimate concern, and I didn't think your attitude towards the whole matter was particularly helpful. If you could clarify/elaborate, that would be appreciated. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Switched to support. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes less is more. Until(1==2) left an appropriate warning for the user, and the user had not done anything that would merit a second warning. Sometimes a user needs a little time to reconsider their actions. Continuing to argue and debate after leaving a warning tends to be a less effective tactic in my experience. Until(1==2) and I have crossed paths before, and we've always gotten along well, in my opinion, so I felt my advice would be taken as constructive. Does that address your concerns? - Jehochman Talk 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. My only interaction with this user was him accusing me of being an Ideogram sock, without bothering to notify me. Addhoc 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note: Jehochman's reply may be found here. Melsaran (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I did mention Addhoc on that suspected sock puppet report because of evidence listed there, but I struck out his name and noted that he was no longer a suspect. Sorry, Addhoc, I will take your comment as sound advice. We need to be careful not to let trolls turn good editors against one another..- Jehochman Talk 13:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Many editors appear to have had good experiences with Jehochman, so I hesitate to oppose based on my experiences alone. He seems overly quick to assume bad faith and has demonstrated impatience in our interactions.
    Advice on communicating, essentially he made the same point I had just made on a talk page. Knowing I can sometimes be unclear, I asked if that was the case. 2nd try:To clarify; I'm not looking to fight or anything like that, you appear to be a neutral editor, so I'm asking for your feedback. answer:Please take all comments and questions about this case to the arbitration forum. Thank you.
    Earlier I asked for his feedback regarding his caution to an editor in a heated conversation I was also partcipating in. I had been doing my best to remain civil and try to cool down the conversation. Hoping for advice, since he seemed to do a good job of doing just that, I asked if I came off in a similar way. He didn't understand what I was talking about, so I gave him a reminder.
    Personally I'd like to see more admins willing to give feedback, so this makes me hesitant.
    Most recently he seems to be assuming I'm trying to do something negative by simply asking for an uninvolved editor to explain another editor's temporary topic ban, since I have actually tried but am most likely not being listened too by the banned editor since I am on the other side of the situation. My point being nobody has explained to the banned editor why they were banned (what policies/guidelines they were violating) except people like me whom the editor is in a dispute with. Back to what this has to do with Jehochman, his response to my request for someone else to explain was:Anynoobody, you're hardly the paragon of impartiality in this matter. Please stop throwing fuel on the fire. Let the community handle <this>. You worry about yourself. Frankly he's missed the point; which is that the community is not handling the situation very well (how can a community expect someone's behavior to improve if it won't explain to that person what they're doing wrong?)
    Folks I'm not saying he shouldn't be an admin, otherwise I'd oppose. Perhaps my experiences with him were a fluke or series of misunderstandings. However because of these experiences I don't feel comfortable endorsing him either. Anynobody 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Anynobody, let me introduce you to the people here. Anynobody is another editor from the Scientology disputes and in particular the celebrated Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. It seems that none of the editors involved in this case are 100% happy with me. But I'm OK with that. Anynobody, these Scientology disputes are difficult. I'm a volunteer trying to do my best. Thank you for not opposing me. I appreciate that bit of understanding. If you want to discuss this further, let's go to my talk page, and anybody here who wants to join us is also welcome. I'm serving cookies. - Jehochman Talk 03:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm actually not referring to the case itself directly, or your partcipation in it. Based on the response you gave to the first poster in this category, my interactions with you appear to have come under the "Sometimes less is more" approach you mention which is what I'm concerned about. Anynobody 03:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    Let me try to understand what you are getting at. You're talking about a conversation at arbitration enforcement where Shutterbug (COFS) was having trouble understanding a topic ban. Is that right? All along you and the pro-Scientology editors haven't seen eye to eye. My advice to you was don't involve yourself in COFS problems. Let somebody else handle it. Do we understand each other? - Jehochman Talk 03:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    There were actually two or three separate incidents I was referring to, that is one of them. The reason the pro-Scientology editors and I don't see eye to eye is because they think reliable sources are biased, full of lies, and should not be used. I've tried several times to explain that we as editors can not question the accuracy of a source without another one. For example, they (pro-COS) point out that a Time article about Scientology uses quotes out of context and is misleading. Personally I think they may be right on some points, because I've read other Time articles that did more or less the same thing. However, unlike the pro-CoS editors, I can still follow the policies and guidelines about content and use them as a source. (Even on stuff I may be biased toward, like I explained to Shutterbug on her talk page:User talk:Shutterbug#A quick point about POV and me (PS I acknowledge the grammatical error in the title, but thought it sounded friendlier.) Anynobody 04:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    I am happy to discuss this with you at length, but this thread is getting way too long for RfA, so can we move over to my talk page, or the RfA talk page instead? Your choice. - Jehochman Talk 04:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate your desire to resolve my concerns, and concur that doing so would take up too much space here. How about a counter proposal? When this closes we can certainly take it up again at your convenience. (I don't mean to give the impression my concerns are a really big deal; I just included diffs and such since it would either seem unfair, untrue, or just childish to comment on a previous interaction without referencing it.) Anynobody 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 05:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral while I believe you can be trusted with the tools, your reaction to every oppose/neutral is of a concern because sometimes knowing when to say nothing can be as effective. Gnangarra 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral only because I'm not familiar with Jehochman, but I wanted to make it clear that I did not oppose him. If anything, from the comments of the other users here, I have the feeling he will do a very good job. Best of luck. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, leaning support - I'm not quite sure where to go on this one. On the one hand, he's clearly been in a lot of contentious disputes, and as I haven't been following the Matt57 case, I don't know who's in the "right" or "wrong" here. On the other hand, he self-evidently does a lot of good work; his past conflicts become more understandable in light of the fact that he works in controversial areas, such as WP:COIN and Scientology-related articles, where (in my experience) it's nearly impossible to avoid conflict. Also, I'm impressed by the fact that Sarah (who tends to have exacting RfA criteria) nominated him. So for now I'm neutral, but I'm open to being persuaded to Support by someone who knows more about the background to this case. WaltonOne 10:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    See my links in response to oppose no. 4? We need a sysop who brings these skills to the table. DurovaCharge! 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. He's trying hard to be a good Admin. That is something. I am not voting pro/con just because J had been active in my ArbCom and any support would pull the fanatics on him. Shutterbug 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    Vote your conscience and let others show themselves for what they are. --Justanother 20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral leaning oppose. My gutfeeling tells me not to trust this user. He seems to good to be true, and things which seem too good to be true usually are. But let's hope I am mistaking and he will make a good administrator. Suva Чего? 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.