Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jehochman

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]

Discussion re Matt57

 * Comment I find it somewhat disturbing that Matt57 was blocked for the "incivility" of suggesting that he would oppose this RfA. 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)

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 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." I agree with that completely. That's what should have been done to begin with.Proabivouac 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)