Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 5 December 2008

Template:Acecandheader

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday

While I like Jehochman, I'm a little worried that he's a bit too overly bureaucratic at times. For instance, in this ANI thread. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check the noticeboard you will see that ScienceApologist started a couple of threads shortly after he received a topic ban. He has simultaneously engaged in potentially disruptive behaviors elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, as noted by Newyorkbrad. Decisions need to be made with reference to all the surrounding facts. I believe that the posts to ANI were done in part to stir up drama. 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 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Edit Analysis

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

Comments

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)

Thanks, Less! Jehochman 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 05:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

• I think the most significant omission from Durova's vote is that she fails to disclose that she had a strong disagreement with me when I refused to defend her improper block of User:!! which ultimately lead to her resigning as an administrator under a cloud. She was exceptionally angry at me and did not speak to me for a time because my arbitration statement included the following remarks: Dmcdevit expressed concerns to me in private just two days ago. I agreed with him, and took action under the good faith presumption that Dmcdevit was correct. He is not aware of this yet, but I have stopped taking advice from Durova, my former admin coach. In fact, I have accepted User:Physchim62's offer to provide new admin training, and User:El C has also agreed to provide guidance on request. She told me that I had betrayed her. It should also be noted that prior to blocking !!, Durova had asked me to place a block on the account as an inappropriate username. I had refused to do that. Voters should judge her oppose rationale in light of this information. Jehochman 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That's quite the red herring, Jehochman. A year ago I made one bad block; I don't defend it myself. Risker authored an opinion about me signed by 43 people at my RFC, yet I supported Risker for ArbCom in the first minutes of this election. Respectfully request you withdraw that assertion, which is both bad faith and unsupportable. Durova 21:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I request that you stop trying to tell me what to do. I do my own thinking and don't take orders from anybody. Thank you, nothing personal. Jehochman 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Allow you to remind you then, that you don't read my mind. Nor is that tone likely to create a better impression on other Wikipedians. Durova 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I heard what you have said to me, and have drawn my conclusions from your remarks. You have speculated that I try to intensify drama with my actions (certainly, that is not my intention). If you'd care to talk about specific incidents of concern, I would be glad to explain my thinking. It is rather odd you'd come here in the first instance to assert that I am a troll. Go ahead, you had the first word, now you can also have the last word. Jehochman 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Jonathan, you make a heavy accusation against me a few posts above. I have no recollection of such a conversation and have reviewed our entire correspondence from November 2007, yet am unable to find it. Please forward me a copy of the occasion when you say this occurred. Durova 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Which heavy accusation? That you asked me to block !! or that you were mad at me for turning my back on you without prior notice? I don't keep Gchat logs. It is not my style. Any chats I have with people are strictly off the record unless I get their explicit permission to log them. Jehochman 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I do not recall asking you to block the !! account, nor do I recall expressing the outrage you claim regarding your seeking of other mentors. The decision to seek other guidance was a reasonable one, since obviously I was not on top of my game at that time. I do remember feeling a bit surprised and hurt that you left me to read about that decision in your RFAR post rather than informing me yourself, but I think my reaction to that was fairly measured. It's been a year; memories can fade. Please refresh mine by forwarding whatever correspondence you're talking about. Durova 22:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
                • Rereading, I see you don't keep gchat logs. Well I do. Again, I have been unable to locate any of these claims you are making. If you cannot substantiate them please withdraw them; if need be I can hand over our entire correspondence for that month to a third party for review, but it seems kind of silly to suggest that a year after the fact. Please accept that my oppose is entirely explained by the reasons I've supplied; my support of Risker is proof enough that I bear no grudges. Respectfully, Durova 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • Memories can fade, but I remember these conversations quite clearly though I am not sure if they were conducted via email, chat or Skype. You're fully entitled to your opinions and to vote however you like. The handling of our arbitration case was appalling and I think we were both surprised and confounded by those events, and I regret that we have this disagreement now. It is perfectly understandable that you and I might have different recollections of who said what and when. I had thought these matters were water under the bridge, but your vote here made me feel that you might still be sore at me. As I said, if you have concerns about my recent activities please do ask about the specifics because I would like to either provide good explanations, or else learn from any mistakes. You'll see that Thatcher has attempted to unblock Peter Damian, so I was not blowing smoke when I explained my rationale for chatting with his alternate account. Thank you. Jehochman 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • I did not begin using Skype until months afterward, and my Misplaced Pages email is a gmail account which gets sorted with the same logs as gchat. Now this isn't a question of 'he said/she said'; I've logged everything and am unable to find what you assert. Since you admit you keep no logs and your recollection is hazy enough that you suppose we might have chatted via Skype long before I ever downloaded that software, really it would be better for you to retract. If you wish to introduce other subjects we can discuss those separately. Durova 22:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
                      • We'll just have to disagree on this issue. My memory is not hazy in these matters. Why would I imagine that you'd asked me to block !! as a bad username if you had not? Can you find the record of where you suggested that I indef User:Academy Leader? Does that refresh your memory at all? Jehochman 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

+ (ec - like a good sysop I am posting in what may or may not be the Wrong Version) I really don't see what this is achieving - my initial reaction was that the tenor of Durova's oppose was coloured by her perception of Jehochmans (in)action regarding the response to the "investigation" of User:!! by her. It doesn't matter whether D thinks this is the case or not, but the possible (might be wrong here, it happens most days) perception is that it does. This does neither editor any good - I would rather a scab, ugly as it may be, to form over what appears to be a running sore. Please just drop it (or take it to some back channel, and I don't give a fuck if anyone keeps a log or not) or two excellent editors are going to continue to be stained by this one unhappy episode. FWIW, I would - and still might, I may break my own rule - vote for J in this ArbCom and I would still co-nominate D for RfA. Can we just shut the fuck up? Please? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's vote

Discussion moved from main voting page. AGK 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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).

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).

• 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 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)