Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Jehochman

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Jehochman or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

 * I'd like to remind everybody that participating in this election that Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal disputes. Any comments of that nature ought to be ignored. Jehochman Talk 23:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have voted to Strongly Oppose this candidate and many other candidates due to significant involvement in drama on the Wikipedia project. Whether or not I agree with the candidate's stances in such conflicts is negligible. I simply cannot contribute my support to anyone that could potentially devalue the integrity of the Arbitration Committee more than it already has. I desire to cancel the soap opera, rather than help renew it for another season with brand new cast members. Vodello (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I fully agree with the candidate's restatement of official Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground, but as you demonstrated on November 25th, I have been given the impression that you are fully unreliable at practicing what you preach and cannot be trusted with anything, not even your administrative rights. This is a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee, and your politicking statement above that directly contradicts many of your actions in the past leads me to never issue my support.


 * I very much wanted to support, but this recently dismissed arbitration case gave me pause. Filing it showed an extreme lack of clue and a propensity for drama. Sorry. AniMate  23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral - leaning to oppose. The drama concerns would unsettle any ArbCom case the candidate took part in. SilkTork  *YES! 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regretful oppose. Arbcom could really use more diversity of background and opinion, and Jehochman's business world experience would be a valuable addition. He is also a succinct and articulate communicator. However, he also has a knack for appearing out of nowhere to intervene in disputes in a way that doesn't help. That's not what we need. Martinp (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Martinp 100%. Sole Soul (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose this user has poor judgment, and holds personal grudges against editors who disagreed with him. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  07:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Jehochman is reasonably ok. as an Admin but has shown poor judgement w.r.t. User:Brews ohare and me. Brews ohare is a retired engineering professor who was topic banned from all physics related pages by an incompetent Arbcom. Brews certainly made mistakes when editing the speed of light article (which does not fall within his expertise). When Brews decided to contribute to policy pages like e.g. my essay and his own essay that was seen to be disruptive by some people (including Jehochman) who had nothing to with these pages. This was construed to be part of Brews' Arbcom restrictions. When I spoke out against this harrassment of Brews, Jehochman accused me of causing trouble on Wikipedia. My view all along was that it is better that retired engineering professor Brews hang around here, contribute to my essay and his own in a non-disruptive way so that in the near future when the topic ban is lifted, he'll again make valuable contributions to areas of his expertise, than be told that the can't even do that, as that would likely lead him to leave Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose while I tend to agree with his positions, I think he's too confrontive for ArbCom. Secret account 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Arbitrators need to be willing/able to read and sift through all comments on a matter, even during perceived difficult situations, to extract the relevant points - regardless of whether it is a strictly arbitration matter or otherwise. I lost any confidence that I had in this candidate when he started childishly expecting answers to his questions which had already been answered before (and where he was confrontational and openly admitted he would not read ). That too, given he was inactive between the time discussion started and the time he responded to the first comment on the talk page suggests that he makes mountains out of molehills and adds extra drama where it is not needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the part about being shallow, and his clumsy and non-investigative approach - an example can be seen here, despite what was clearly labelled earlier. He later self-reverted after another user pointed out this obvious fact. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose I cannot trust anyone involved in the SEO business with any decisive power here on Wikipedia. I am afraid of what his reading of the COI guidelines would bring to the committee, as the guidelines are anything but a "naive view", as he has claimed they are.  Them From  Space  08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  07:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at Jehochmans contributions at ANI and present involvement in Arbcom cases he appears to be shallow and non-investigative. These are not traits we want at Arbcom.  Arbcom needs people willing to extract truth from claims and I don't see him doing that. I publicly oppose Jehochman. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oppose - I'm not convinced my concerns from last year have been addressed. See User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)