Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 16 November 2009 (→Discussion of FT2's questions: revise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections • Results • Voter log • Discuss the elections  • Give feedback on the elections v t e Election pages: Candidate guide • Candidate statements • Questions for the candidates • Discuss the candidates • Comment on the candidates Individuals' guides: Bfigura • Casliber • Ceranthor • CT Cooper • Elonka • JayHenry • Juliancolton • Lankiveil • Lar • Majorly  • MZMcBride • Riana • Rschen7754 • SandyGeorgia • Vyvyan Ade Basterd • William M. Connolley

Request

Jehochman, for the sake of readability, would it be possible to paste your answers individually underneath the numbered questions. I understand the hesitancy to alter others comments, but scrolling up and down to see which answer correlates with each question doesn't make for easy readability. Anyway, thanks for answering my questions. AniMate 08:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.Jehochman 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of FT2's questions

Your final comments were after I pointed out your initial comments -- which otherwise would have likely been left. I don't consider "I changed it when pointed out" as as evidence you'd make a good arb.

1. A user who admits to "political games" isn't going to make a good arb.
2. A user who used RFAR as a game, to "get" at someone, isn't going to make a good arb.
3. A user who posts preconceptions without reading evidence, or fabricates a view rather than saying "I don't understand the evidence", isn't going to make a good arb
4. A user who cannot understand complex evidence is not going to make a good arb.
5. A user who explicitly states one thing privately, and another publicly, will not make a trustworthy arb (I hope you don't deny stating in private - in contrast to your public post - that you knew it wasn't grudge based, and may be 100% correct? At the same time you posted the exact opposite claim on-wiki?)

As you well know, when you stand for Arbcom, your entire Wiki related conduct is on the table. You are entitled to think they are "personal grievances". You're mistaken. These are my concerns. FT2  02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your concerns. If you want to resolve them, the questions page of my candidacy is not the right place to hold a discussion. You are free to ask questions, and I will answer them. Your comments above are statements, not questions. Please do not misuse the page by starting a long threaded discussion or by asking more than your fair share of questions. I am going to think about your comments and may respond further when I am ready. Jehochman 02:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "your" page or "your" talk page. It's a page for questions and concerns directly related to a candidates' candidacy, and asked as part of questions to that candidate. You may refute them there, or state there that you'll come back to them. A direct response clarifying the basis of concern of the questions, is exactly relevant. If there's general discussion subsequent, then that's what moves here. But a statement "this is personal stuff" when it's not, plus quick move to a much less visible page... no. If needed, ask an election monitor. FT2  02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked] already. Let's wait and see what they say. I think you have a blind spot. You profess objectivity in matters where personal feelings may be involved. I think it would serve you well to become more aware of these situations. The Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 RFC you filed was a mistake, pure and simple. While you may have had legitimate concerns, the prior dispute resolution steps you attempted were not valid in my opinion. Furthermore, you were complaining about matters, as best I can tell, that were subject to arbitration committee review already. It does not make sense to go from Arbitration to RFC. If you think the arbitration committee did not effectively consider all the matters, you should have asked ArbCom to reopen the matter. I'm not keen to discuss the conduct of third party users here on this page. It isn't fair to them for us to talk about their behavior behind their backs. Jehochman 02:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the length of your posts and the potential for a long conversion would tend to overwhelm my question page. Your concern may be valid, but you are not entitled to dominate my questions page by starting a long discussion there. Do not demand more than your fair share of attention. Do not use this venue to litigate disputes. Jehochman 02:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm often wordy. But I don't think anyone would claim my post above was that, nor that one reply was "lengthy".

What's interesting here is that when I show you evidence, as in diffs, your response is not to look at the evidence, or answer the questions they raise. You ask if the person has standing to raise the questions, and you assert bad faith. Last time you did that, you admitted (privately) the case was possibly 100% correct and without grudges. And admitted your response asserting bad faith was without reading the evidence.

Do you deny any of that? Do you think that's how arbs should handle disputes - on the basis of preconceptions not evidence?

That is exactly the concern I am raising. It's directly pertinent to your candidacy, if a user has a concern or a question about your actions as an admin, your handling of disputes, or your integrity in public vs. private. FT2  03:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said privately. You seem to construe my comments to you in a way that is most favorable to your position, rather than the way I meant them. FT2 is an anonymous internet moniker. JEHochman is my name. I stand behind everything I say or do with my real world credibility. Do you appreciate the difference? If you think I lack integrity, you should consider the possibility that there has been a persistent misunderstanding between us. As for length, it is obvious that this conversation is not going to be short. Jehochman 03:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you made clear, categorical, statements not really subject to misunderstanding. Would you like me to NOINDEX this page and repost them here, so others can judge if I have misunderstood any of them? Your words are not prone to interpretation in various ways. At the very least you have some serious explaining to do.

You have stated that you used recall and RFAR to try and get desysopped a user you were angry with, and at the time described that as being a "political game" and poor judgment (whatever the words may mean); you responded with a firm view favoring one side in a serious dispute presented at RFC without in fact reading any evidence or diffs; you have stated you cannot understand moderately complex case evidence (if you can't read mine you really will find most RFAR's hard); the rest you believe is grudge and misunderstanding. I hope it's clear why there will be questions on these issues and your candidacy. Concerns like these would go to the heart of arbitratorship. If they have good explanations, explain them to the community whose confidence you are seeking, don't just claim they're bad faith. FT2  04:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I will not be discussing third parties here on this page, nor will I allow you to post any private comments I may have made to you as these referenced other parties. I am disappointed that you've already violated confidences. I am especially not interested in re-igniting old disputes by discussing them here. That would be a mistake, and I will not be drawn into doing that. Jehochman 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the questions (issues 4 - 7) are not about third parties, but about your handling of dispute resolution. "I opined on a high profile matter but actually had never read the evidence" is a concern at any dispute, not just this or that one. "I told a user in private he was possibly 100% right and reasonable, but indicated to the community in public he was probably just feuding from bad faith" is a contradiction that could be a concern at any dispute. Those aren't reigniting anything; they are asking you to explain your conduct on points of core arbitrator conduct to the community you are asking to trust you. FT2  05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

<-- Why don't you ask some theoretical questions that don't require me to comment on third party users, or dredge up old bones that are better left buried? The following comments might give you insight into my thinking.

• As for opined but never read evidence: I believe in WP:TLDR and also if I look at evidence and the first few diffs don't verify, I may stop. Furthermore, in the context of an RfC, if the preliminaries look dodgy, for instance, there has not been a bona fide attempt at dispute resolution, or if the RfC is filed post-arbitration about matters already investigated, or if it looks like a violation of WP:STICK, I might not feel the need to read all the evidence closely.
• As for saying one thing in private and another in public: it is possible to both be right and reasonable and also be feuding at the same time. If I am chatting with a user offline I may tell them that they have potentially valid concerns, but raising those concerns on wiki may be unwise because they will be viewed as feuding or carrying on a dispute well beyond it's usefulness.

In summary, I am a big picture person. I take a broad view of matters. It is not my style to chop things up into little pieces and analyze each one. I'm sure you've heard the expression "can't see the forest for the trees". I see forests; that's my unique value proposition. People hire me for that ability. It takes all kind of people to make ArbCom work. Clearly, your approach is different from mine. I wish you'd respect that difference rather than criticizing me for being different from you. Jehochman 05:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to everyone who wants to put together an opinion of you as a candidate to stop going oh, but he broke my confidence as if you were Krystle Carrington wounded by the spars of Alexis and put that aside and actually respond to issues instead of dodging with the hurt feelings. ArbCom is a pretty nasty place and people are going to critique you a lot more than they already have; hopefully you'll be able to handle the road ahead should you get that seat. Mike H. Fierce! 11:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't respond further without raising a host of issues that involve third parties and that would be better left dead and buried. I simply won't reignite a bunch of dramas in an effort to get elected. The success of my candidacy is not worth the damage to Misplaced Pages of going down that path, nor am I going to talk about other people's behavior, nor am I going to address FT2's behavior. This page is about my behavior only. If you want to vote against me because of my approach, you can. My final answer is necessarily general: FT2 has misunderstood or misrepresented what I said and did. Jehochman 14:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Comment: I wish to indicate my respect for all of Jehochman's contributions. I believe that he has done a fine job taking a firm stance against problem users, and in other ways shown his fitness for the Committee. I want to support him. The only factor that makes me uncertain is his seeming tendency to get drawn into disputes that border on non-genial. The ongoing FT2-Jehochman-Others Saga has come up at several seemingly unrelated venues this past year. In addition, his quasi-feud with certain EEML participants may show this propensity for almost unfriendly behavior. I suspect Jehochman may have been in the right in these instances, yet has he shown inappropriate levels of unfriendliness in his responses? He is certainly not combatative, but have his responses in these few areas been so excessively businesslike such that they have deprecated collaborative relationships. I continue to ponder... —Finn Casey * 05:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind words. I have an ongoing struggle between my tendency to state things very plainly, and the better course of action, which is to consider peoples' feelings and answer in a way that avoids needless offense. You'll notice that I frequently tweak my comments to make them more congenial. As for EEML, have a look at this conversation. You could also ask User:SandyGeorgia what she thinks of me now. Our first interaction here was less than stellar (check my stricken comments to her). While my initial reactions may be less than perfect, I am pretty good at forgiving and moving past disagreements. Jehochman 05:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)