Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jehochman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jehochman

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support

  1. An editor with integrity, openness, and commitment to the ideals of what this project is supposed to be about. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Durova. I think we less secrecy and more openness in Arbcom decisions and Jehochman is a right guy Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oren0 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support simply because you have the experience and have been about 50/50, which is better than what most people would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. per OR. Giggy (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I had made a list of people who I would be fine with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Arbiters that would be unfraid to in public diverge strongly from any inappropriate AC "party line" are needed. Wikipedia is more important than the AC, and someone who seems to think that way has my vote. Drama? Maybe, but sometimes you need the fire of public drama to keep back-channel operators in line and from dealing inappropriately. rootology (C)(T) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support John254 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Prodego talk 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You go, Jehochman! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Strikes me as opinionated, principled, clear-spoken, and beholden to no one. Would make a strong arb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Shows that he understands the many kinds of editors that make up Wikipedia, not just the highly visible cliques. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, I dont agree with many of his answers, but I do like them. Diversity is good. He has a very strong experience in the frustrations of arbitration, and a different approach to dealing with matters. I think he would be a good addition to a committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Jehochman seems to me to be a deep thinking editor who sincerely wants the best for the encyclopedia, and consistently does what he believes to be best. Unfortunately, such actions seldom earn friends and support from the masses, which is a great pity, as Wikipedia needs some gentle reforms and Jehochman is one of the few I would trust to help bring them about. The Arbitration committee needs a better mix of editors, and it needs such as Hochman. Giano (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Futile Support. Brilliantine (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Avenue (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support - Jehochman is thoughtful and widely experience in a number of areas relevant to Arbitration. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I am personally voting for Jehochman from the positive behaviors I have experienced with him. He does dip into the drama areas but I see him trying to add more light than fire to them. Good luck! --CrohnieGalTalk 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Horologium (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - ScarianCall me Pat! 11:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Skinwalker (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support •CHILLDOUBT• 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support better than what we have! Verbal chat 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support My change, withdrawing my support Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the account checker on the ArbCom Elections page says I AM eligible to vote in this election. What is going on here? I protest this seemingly arbitrary decision. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to wannabe_kate this user has 167 edits before November 1st. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An ongoing discussion about this user's votes, and whether they should be allowed or not, is ongoing at WT:ACE2008#Eligibility. --Elonka 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. My bad. (For missing the 'mainspace edits' constraint.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like the discussion is over and noone is really advocating that we change the rules. Either way, the rules say the vote doesn't count, so until consensus to the contrary is developed, the vote should remain stricken. ST47 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I don't agree on everything he does, but he's a fast improvement over most of the gang.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I think Jehochman would be an excellent Arbitrator, and he's been willing to get his hands dirty, which sets him apart from nearly all of the other candidates. I'd like to see a day where active involvement in the project's controversial issues is not automatic certain doom for an ArbCom candidate; it should be a requirement. MastCell Talk 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weaker than expected support. Some time ago, I contacted Jehochman privately to ask that he consider running for Arb Comm. Since then, I've come to share some of the concerns from opposers about drama-mongery, and I hope that he'll take these concerns under advisement if elected. On the whole, however, he remains one of the more courageous and level-headed candidates. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. On balance. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I agree with Orangemarlin: I don't agree with everything Jehochman does, but I trust his judgment overall. My own interactions with him have been fine, and he has the necessary experience for the role. Acalamari 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Tiptoety talk 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Hut 8.5 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per his answer to my question, and a general sense that he has sense. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Nothing personal, just strategy.[reply]
    Support Sensible and fair.Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Have always held this editor in high regard for his integrity and good sence. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Moral Support. I admire Jehochman's diligence and forthrightness. I was also impressed with the clear-headed answers to questions. The tendency to drama and promotion of issues into arbitration cases is a concern. Jeh's steady progression bodes well for next year though. Franamax (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Long-standing user, and though I acknowledge the concerns of the opposers, I feel that previous ArbCom case experience is relevant, and this candidate is more suitable than some others that are running. GlassCobra 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. A brave and wise admin who has gotten his hands dirty, made some mistakes, and learned from them. Overall a positive learning curve. -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Alexfusco5 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. not afraid of messes. (basically, per Mastcell/Orangemarlin above) Keeper ǀ 76 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Although his contributions have caused some waves at AN/I, I personally believe that Jehochman is one of the few candidates who has the capacity to handle some of the difficult choices and changes ahead at arbcom.Nrswanson (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. --Michael WhiteT·C 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Although I have disagreed with some of Jehochman's actions and comments in the past, I believe that he is an administrator that has integrity and motive, and is willing to lead the charge for changes at ArbCom. Good luck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Ankimai (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Not one to bend under pressure. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Tries to speak the truth. The poor sod. SBHarris 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I've always felt that jehochman was a bit hasty in the things that he does as an admin and was planning on not voting, but, on reading the answers to the questions (well, the ones I'm interested in anyway) I changed my mind. Tersely expressed perhaps, but very reasonable and focused around content and quality, the two things that are perhaps the most important for wikipedia. Perhaps a plain speaking arbitrator, if a tetchy one, will be a useful addition to the committee. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. --BozMo talk 09:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Jehochman is a kind editor that gives other users advice. I will support you. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. I don't see a problem with his nomination. -- Alexf(talk) 12:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support He listens. Is reasonable. Shows good judgement. --HighKing (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Happy‑melon 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Terence (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per Cla68.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support because candidate has appropriate experience, willingness and a good deal of clue and right attitude. The ability to be flexible and learn from experience is a major positive and I'm concerned that some oppose votes see this as a negative. As this candidate has operated in some tricky areas and has made the bold decisions it is not surprising that some users do not agree with his actions. I have examined the links provided in the oppose section and on the whole they actually show Jehochman in a positive light - reflecting on his actions, offering explanations, standing up for the project, etc. SilkTork *YES! 13:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support: Although, early on, Jehochman fell a bit toward the social side of Wikipedia, he was always aiming for proper practice and principles, and he is now clear eyed about the situation and wary of clubs and factions. That is what makes him appropriate for ArbCom, and not merely being an administrator. Geogre (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongest possible oppose Jehochman has a long history of what could be termed dispute enhancement: passing out pitchforks and lighting torches. Most recently he did that with the banned sockpuppet that was spreading rumors about FT2, Giano, and Oversight. Jehochman even cross posted the troll’s claims to AE under the subthread heading ‘Conspiracy?’. A couple of weeks earlier Jehochman was the sole certifier for the unpopular RFC initiated by Charles Matthews on Slrubenstein. Jehochman was the one who initiated the controversial Elonka recall drive. In the leadup to the unfortunate Zeraeph arbitration he started a community ban proposal on her while other editors were seeking to deescalate. This is pattern behavior that Jehochman has demonstrated in a lot of other situations also: turning up the heat when it isn’t necessary, then after dozens of other people make the difficult decision to come down on one side or another he acts conciliatory and bows out of the resulting mess. Few administrators could be less suitable for arbitration than someone who does this habitually. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion removed to talk. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Concerned oppose. Perhaps a minor thing, but edit warring against consensus a day before voting begins??? If someone can't avoid problematic behavior even when the eyes of the project are on them, god help us if they got a three-year tenure as an arb. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Ѕandahl ♥ 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Voyaging(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Durova. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. iridescent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. krimpet✽ 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose Majorly talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgraded to strong oppose, per petty edit warring on the questions page. Majorly talk 15:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose. I concur with Durova's assessment, and would add IRC admin-shopping and a history of on-wiki harassment to the list of concerns about Jehochman's behavior. He is absolutely not someone who should be on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Further comments and diffs, as well as Jehochman's rebuttal, are available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. I'd invite Elonka to respond there. AGK 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Steven Walling (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Needs to learn how to reduce drama rather than increase it. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not a bad guy, but he has some ongoing disputes with other admins and long term contributors that I think demonstrate the sort of battleground positioning which has been detrimental to Wikipedia. Avruch T 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. RockManQReview me 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. A little too much politics, not enough encyclopedia building. AgneCheese/Wine 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Atmoz (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose at the strongest point ever. --Mixwell!Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ҉ Sorry :) --Mixwell!Talk 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you can't vote twice. miranda 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I was going to be one of his strongest supporters, but oppose over his recent actions which show he's quick to give excessive credence to what certain people say and spread it in some of the most public venues on wiki, prolonging a dispute/contratemps. (to clarify, I mean the "conspiracy?" (against Giano) allegations, essentially Durova's point. I didn't even realise he was part of the SlRubenstein RfC- that puts extra icing on the cake that wasn't even needed. Sticky Parkin 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I've seen this user "resolving" disputes - I don't want to see them as an Arbitrator. GRBerry 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Captain panda 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose BJTalk 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Someone who was involved one of the biggest dramas of the past year should not be running for a position of power this soon. People still remember this and it sits absolutely horribly with me. Mike H. Fierce! 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. My overall impression of Jehochman is positive - he strikes me as a mature and capable administrator. But he's altogether too prone to drama, and more importantly, his positive qualities are better suited for other areas of Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose: For serious past judgement mistakes. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Like Master Expert, and some others here, I have a generally positive experience of him as a fellow admin. But in the past I have felt he was too close, too protective of some other editors and admins I wound up enmeshed in drama with. So I feel, and these oppose votes bear this feeling out, that enough of the community cannot see him as adequately impartial for me to feel comfortable putting him in an Arbitrator's chair. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. While I think he means well (and generally does a good job), I don't think he has the temperament for ArbCom work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose For various reasons stated by others. لennavecia 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Rebecca (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, wrong temperament, wrong views on BLP and ArbCom making policy, wrong candidate for the position. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - we need fire extinguishers, not more fuel. // roux   editor review10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Per Durova. Less drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. — neuro(talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - I like Jehochman, but he seems far too willing to tolerate disruption from established users for me to support. Ronnotel (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Per Durova and Cla68 --B (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Absolutely Not By far one of the biggest drama mongers running for the committee. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose per Alecmconroy. Dengero (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose - too quick to judge. I was involved in a misunderstanding with another editor and Jehochman said I "very well might be a troll" based solely on the word of that other editor. After I calmly explained the situation he did concede my position, but an arbitrator needs to reserve judgement until he knows all the facts. ATren (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Poor attitude re BLP--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Catchpole (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Oppose When I asked Jehochman to remove a derogatory comment about me from an other editors page he told me to ignore it, when the mediator who was dealing with my mediation removed it he warned him about removing it and went on to protect the page with offending comment still on it. Jehochman removed it after getting approval from the editor who had placed the comments 15 mins after PP. Also his lack of good faith in my reason saying that I set out to purposly decieve here is troubling. BigDuncTalk 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Synergy 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strongest Possible Oppose for the complete lack of objectivity, judgment, reason, and especially wisdom that arbitrators desperately need, and for the abuse of administrator privileges. An example: this "harassment" accusation by Jehochman was a response to objection to this. Examples are numerous, but have no energy to point to them all. Lakinekaki (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that you made me login, but this matter is important so I did it. Lakinekaki (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I object to arbiters who want to increase the amount of secrecy surrounding the committee. >Radiant< 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Strong Oppose Adjusted to strong oppose following this pursuit of Sarah after her oppose !vote, and which I assume is also referred to in Orderinchaos' !vote below. This is definitely not the type of behaviour I would expect from any potential ArbCom member. --VS talk 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose - His recent actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Science Apologist and Pseudoscience show lack of judgment, poor conflict management and possibly even lack of impartiality. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong oppose, many issues, Durova's assessment is right on target and including support of edit warring, uncivil editors per the above. Dreadstar † 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose, per Durova -- TimidGuy (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose, unqualified and vindictive. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Martintg (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Even ignoring all the issues with administrative action, the candidates' platform shows no real indication of original thought; "let's do everything we're supposed to be doing, but better" is not a particularly compelling message when one is running to join an institution this discredited. Skomorokh 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Sorry, but I looked into your recent edit history and the nature of your involvement in various issues mentioned above. Although I don't necessarily support the positions of others in some of these situations, I am very uneasy with the tenor of your behavior and feel I must oppose. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. SlimVirgin talk|edits 05:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose for unhelpful involvement in several recent conflagrations. Chick Bowen 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I have serious concerns about Jehochman's behaviour over the last year and I do not believe having him serve on the committee is in the project's best interests. Sarah 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Mike R (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Saw a comment a few months ago, made me scared of him. Willing to reconsider. Chergles (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose, sorry. I think he tries for the best, but I don't see him as an efficient arbiter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. miranda 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. oppose ARBCOM should be about resolving problems not creating them, Jehochman recent activity doesnt make that likely Gnangarra 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose, --CreazySuit (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. - auburnpilot talk 06:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Gentgeen (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. I was on the fence with this as you do some really good work. The concerns voiced here, from so many editors I respect and admire are just too great to ignore. Are they all wrong, or are they saying something you should take into consideration? Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Kusma (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Rockpocket 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong oppose Jehochman is smart, but flip-flops too quickly in conflicts; the effect is to stir up fires rather than calm things down. too political. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong oppose. Having seen Jehochman's history, I do not believe his arbitrage would be useful to the project in any meaningful sense. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Michael Snow (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose --maclean 03:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Weak oppose. Would have supported in the past, but the recent involvement in the Giano case has made me question his judgement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Nothing personal; I have preferences. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Jehochman has done some good stuff lately but I am still uneasy about his history. Sorry. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose for drama enhancement and questionable comments here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose Concerns with flip flopping of judgment and consequently a seeming lack of conviction on stances he takes (irrespective of whether I agree with the stance or not).Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  98. Oppose Per display of very poor judgement.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose. You "might" have to disregard evidence if it can't be shared with the person it will potentially be used to sanction? In this context, to paraphrase Yoda, there is no "might". Cynical (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. A pitchfork-and-torch merchant, as Durova says. --TS 00:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Wronkiew (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Some conduct concerns. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Jehochman wikilawyers his way around the noticeboard and I've seen inappropriate conduct on too many occasions - most of those are metioned in Durova's oppose above. Caulde 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose. Was going to abstain on the basis of my high regard for the candidate on a personal level, but some recent displays of high-handed and impetuous behaviour [3] [4] together with a total consideration of some other issues, including the initiation of several ArbCom requests in a rather hasty fashion earlier in the year, the execution-before-trial approach highlighted by other people here, and some comments made by him on the IRC en-admins channel, leads me to conclude that there is a real risk of a blood rush to the head if this candidate were to be elected. I find it particularly sad as I had very good dealings with the candidate in 2007 and voted support on his RfA based on substantially different exhibited behaviour. At least the candidate cannot accuse *me* of insufficient content contributions in recent months. Orderinchaos 18:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jehochman&oldid=1087280487"