Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jehochman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jehochman's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC):

run at Thu Oct 4 22:19:11 2007 GMT
Category talk: 3  
Category: 12  
Image talk: 2  
Image: 96  
Mainspace 2304  
Talk: 461  
Template talk: 24  
Template: 30  
User talk: 1359  
User: 301  
Wikipedia talk: 369  
Wikipedia: 1468  
avg edits per page 4.29  
earliest 04:08, 22 March 2005  
number of unique pages 1500  
total 6429  

2005/3  4   
2005/4  19   
2005/5  0   
2005/6  0   
2005/7  5   
2005/8  67   
2005/9  115   
2005/10  47   
2005/11  43   
2005/12  34   
2006/1  24   
2006/2  96   
2006/3  60   
2006/4  48   
2006/5  113   
2006/6  74   
2006/7  26   
2006/8  85   
2006/9  32   
2006/10  141   
2006/11  185   
2006/12  198   
2007/1  205   
2007/2  176   
2007/3  262   
2007/4  798   
2007/5  956   
2007/6  719   
2007/7  535   
2007/8  596   
2007/9  690   
2007/10  76   


Mainspace  
362 Search engine optimization  
69 Voice over IP  
67 Radio-frequency identification  
52 Wi-Fi  
48 Internet marketing  
39 Search engine marketing  
34 Barcode  
31 Social media optimization  
30 Warehouse management system  
29 Unterseeboot 853  
28 Automatic identification and data capture  
26 Barry Schwartz (technologist)  
25 Leona Helmsley  
25 Web 2.0  
25 Doug Heil  


Talk:  
134 Search engine optimization  
36 Kiev/naming  
19 Radio-frequency identification  
15 Zango  
14 Wi-Fi  
11 Voice over IP  
9 Beit She'an  
8 Web 2.0  
7 Mahalo.com  
7 Matt Cutts  
6 Social media optimization  
6 SunRocket  
6 Bruce Clay  
5 Vanessa Fox  
5 PageRank  


Category talk:  
3 Search engine optimization consultants  
     

Category:  
8 Search engine optimization consultants  


Image:  
8 Scanner.jpg  
7 Aaron-wall.png  
6 Serp.jpg  
6 Serp.png  
5 Google-buenos-aires.jpg  
4 Vf1.gif  
4 BDF-logo.jpg  
4 Bruce-clay.jpg  
4 Baidu-serp.jpg  
3 Media-Cybernetics.png  
3 DAPtech.gif  
3 Broadvoice.gif  
3 Rand-fishkin.jpg  
2 Lyrtech logo.png  
2 PI Acton.png 

 
Template:  
12 Uw-coi  
7 Internet Marketing  
2 ANI-notice  
2 COI2  


Template talk:  
13 COI2  
3 Did you know  
3 COI  
2 Grading scheme  


User:  
165 Jehochman  
35 AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult  
13 Jehochman/Notes  
8 Jehochman/Sandbox  
7 Jehochman/Investigations  
5 AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult/archive1  
5 LidDavis  
5 Jehochman/bling  
4 Jehochman/barnstars  
3 Jehochman/SEO News Appearances  
3 Elonka/Top-10  
2 Sstratz/Zango  
2 Uncle G/On notability  
2 Landsfarthereast  
2 Barneca/Temps/talkprotmsg  


User talk:  
296 Jehochman  
125 Durova  
17 Eagle 101  
14 Shutterbug  
12 Justanother  
11 Bishonen  
11 Akhilleus  
9 SandyGeorgia  
9 Akc9000  
8 Cumbrowski  
7 Lsi john  
7 Blathering1  
7 Shutterbug/Archive2  
7 Shutterbug/Archive1  
6 Zscout370  


Wikipedia:  
247 Conflict of interest/Noticeboard  
147 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  
77 Community sanction noticeboard  
74 Search engine optimization  
73 Conflict of interest  
64 Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram  
63 Administrators' noticeboard  
61 Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop  
47 Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization  
43 Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence  
39 Requests for adminship/Elonka 2  
25 Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard  
17 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Capture-bonding  
16 Business' FAQ  
14 Administrator intervention against vandalism  


Wikipedia talk:  
153 Conflict of interest  
22 WikiProject Spam  
22 Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence  
18 Verifiability  
15 Reliable sources  
14 Blocking policy  
13 Conflict of interest/Noticeboard  
13 Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red  
13 Requests for adminship/Elonka 2  
11 Community sanction noticeboard  
7 Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2  
5 WikiProject Beer  
5 Banning policy  
5 Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision  
5 Requests for adminship  

Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]

[edit] Discussion re Matt57

• Comment I find it somewhat disturbing that Matt57 was blocked for the "incivility" of suggesting that he would oppose this RfA.[1] 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 11:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implications

As I read the situation WP:AN/I was consulted for opinions because of harassment by Matt57 during which he made the RfA comment. There was then a discussion in which Matt57 was warned to tread carefully after two further hours of discussion Matt57 was block for 1 month for Harassment. WP:HARASS#Blockable_disruption_not_defined_above says should be considered an aggravating actor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 24 hour block might become a 1 week block if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. From this the month was justified. This is mere background to my comments...

My question is why has the comment by Matt57 been posted, isnt posting it to the RfA carrying out the threat. If it is then not only should Matt57s block be extended but the editor who facilitated this action should also be sanctioned and the comment removed. If the comment is left in place then its sanctioned and the block on Matt57 should be removed as the threat was a factor contributing to block. Gnangarra 11:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's got another 20 days to run on his current block, so I don't see any hurry. If towards the end of the block this has all blown over, then I certainly wouldn't envisage the need for another block. Addhoc 12:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

either it was threat or not... that has immediate implications, if by the actions here its not then the block should be lifted asap. Gnangarra 12:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was exactly what it appeared to be, a statement that he would oppose a request for adminship on the basis of his personal experience. That's a common reason for supports and opposes alike. Jehochman wrote, "Matt57 wants his opinion to be heard. Fine. People can read what he has to say and make up their own minds."[2] I agree with that completely. That's what should have been done to begin with.Proabivouac 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Ideogram investigation

Addhoc, I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. Rather, I suspected you of being a possible sock because of a few of your early edits, plus your comments defending Ideogram. While this edit to your userpage may have been a joke, I hope you'll understand why it made me suspicious at first glance. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)