Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jehochman

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

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion  re Matt57 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Implications

message: 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)
thread_title: Explanation of Ideogram investigation