Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Jehochman/Questions for the candidate

Request
Jehochman, for the sake of readability, would it be possible to paste your answers individually underneath the numbered questions. I understand the hesitancy to alter others comments, but scrolling up and down to see which answer correlates with each question doesn't make for easy readability. Anyway, thanks for answering my questions. AniMate  08:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.Jehochman Talk 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of FT2's questions
Your final comments were after I pointed out your initial comments -- which otherwise would have likely been left. I don't consider "I changed it when pointed out" as as evidence you'd make a good arb.


 * A user who admits to "political games" isn't going to make a good arb.
 * A user who used RFAR as a game, to "get" at someone, isn't going to make a good arb.
 * A user who posts preconceptions without reading evidence, or fabricates a view rather than saying "I don't understand the evidence", isn't going to make a good arb
 * A user who cannot understand complex evidence is not going to make a good arb.
 * A user who explicitly states one thing privately, and another publicly, will not make a trustworthy arb (I hope you don't deny stating in private - in contrast to your public post - that you knew it wasn't grudge based, and may be 100% correct? At the same time you posted the exact opposite claim on-wiki?)

As you well know, when you stand for Arbcom, your entire Wiki related conduct is on the table. You are entitled to think they are "personal grievances". You're mistaken. These are my concerns. FT2 (Talk 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your concerns. If you want to resolve them, the questions page of my candidacy is not the right place to hold a discussion.  You are free to ask questions, and I will answer them. Your comments above are statements, not questions. Please do not misuse the page by starting a long threaded discussion or by asking more than your fair share of questions. I am going to think about your comments and may respond further when I am ready. Jehochman Talk 02:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't "your" page or "your" talk page. It's a page for questions and concerns directly related to a candidates' candidacy, and asked as part of questions to that candidate. You may refute them there, or state there that you'll come back to them. A direct response clarifying the basis of concern of the questions, is exactly relevant. If there's general discussion subsequent, then that's what moves here. But a statement "this is personal stuff" when it's not, plus quick move to a much less visible page... no. If needed, ask an election monitor. FT2 (Talk 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked] already. Let's wait and see what they say.  I think you have a blind spot.  You profess objectivity in matters where personal feelings may be involved.  I think it would serve you well to become more aware of these situations.  The Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 RFC you filed was a mistake, pure and simple.  While you may have had legitimate concerns, the prior dispute resolution steps you attempted were not valid in my opinion.  Furthermore, you were complaining about matters, as best I can tell, that were subject to arbitration committee review already.  It does not make sense to go from Arbitration to RFC.  If you think the arbitration committee did not effectively consider all the matters, you should have asked ArbCom to reopen the matter.  I'm not keen to discuss the conduct of third party users here on this page.  It isn't fair to them for us to talk about their behavior behind their backs.  Jehochman Talk 02:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the length of your posts and the potential for a long conversion would tend to overwhelm my question page. Your concern may be valid, but you are not entitled to dominate my questions page by starting a long discussion there.  Do not demand more than your fair share of attention.  Do not use this venue to litigate disputes. Jehochman Talk 02:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm often wordy. But I don't think anyone would claim my post above was that, nor that one reply was "lengthy".


 * What's interesting here is that when I show you evidence, as in diffs, your response is not to look at the evidence, or answer the questions they raise. You ask if the person has standing to raise the questions, and you assert bad faith. Last time you did that, you admitted (privately) the case was possibly 100% correct and without grudges. And admitted your response asserting bad faith was without reading the evidence.


 * Do you deny any of that? Do you think that's how arbs should handle disputes - on the basis of preconceptions not evidence?


 * That is exactly the concern I am raising. It's directly pertinent to your candidacy, if a user has a concern or a question about your actions as an admin, your handling of disputes, or your integrity in public vs. private. FT2 (Talk 03:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood what I said privately. You seem to construe my comments to you in a way that is most favorable to your position, rather than the way I meant them. FT2 is an anonymous internet moniker.  JEHochman is my name.  I stand behind everything I say or do with my real world credibility.  Do you appreciate the difference?, If you think I lack integrity, you should consider the possibility that there has been a persistent misunderstanding between us.  As for length, it is obvious that this conversation is not going to be short. Jehochman Talk 03:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you made clear, categorical, statements not really subject to misunderstanding. Would you like me to NOINDEX this page and repost them here, so others can judge if I have misunderstood any of them? Your words are not prone to interpretation in various ways. At the very least you have some serious explaining to do.


 * You have stated that you used recall and RFAR to try and get desysopped a user you were angry with, and at the time described that as being a "political game" and poor judgment (whatever the words may mean); you responded with a firm view favoring one side in a serious dispute presented at RFC without in fact reading any evidence or diffs; you have stated you cannot understand moderately complex case evidence (if you can't read mine you really will find most RFAR's hard); the rest you believe is grudge and misunderstanding. I hope it's clear why there will be questions on these issues and your candidacy. Concerns like these would go to the heart of arbitratorship. If they have good explanations, explain them to the community whose confidence you are seeking, don't just claim they're bad faith. FT2 (Talk 04:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I will not be discussing third parties here on this page, nor will I allow you to post any private comments I may have made to you as these referenced other parties. I am disappointed that you've already violated confidences. I am especially not interested in re-igniting old disputes by discussing them here. That would be a mistake, and I will not be drawn into doing that.  Jehochman Talk 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the questions (issues 4 - 7) are not about third parties, but about your handling of dispute resolution. "I opined on a high profile matter but actually had never read the evidence" is a concern at any dispute, not just this or that one. "I told a user in private he was possibly 100% right and reasonable, but indicated to the community in public he was probably just feuding from bad faith" is a contradiction that could be a concern at any dispute. Those aren't reigniting anything; they are asking you to explain your conduct on points of core arbitrator conduct to the community you are asking to trust you. FT2 (Talk 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

<--[OUTDENT] Why don't you ask some theoretical questions that don't require me to comment on third party users, or dredge up old bones that are better left buried? The following comments might give you insight into my thinking. In summary, I am a big picture person. I take a broad view of matters. It is not my style to chop things up into little pieces and analyze each one. I'm sure you've heard the expression "can't see the forest for the trees". I see forests; that's my unique value proposition. People hire me for that ability. It takes all kind of people to make ArbCom work. Clearly, your approach is different from mine. I wish you'd respect that difference rather than criticizing me for being different from you. Jehochman Talk 05:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for opined but never read evidence: I like the essay too long didn't read. If I look at evidence and the first few diffs don't support the assertions given, I may stop reading (and then I should tell the user that there's a problem with their evidence).  Furthermore, in the context of an RfC, if the preliminaries look dubious, for instance, there has not been a bona fide attempt at dispute resolution, or if the RfC is filed post-arbitration about matters already investigated, or if it looks like a violation of WP:STICK, I might not feel the need to read all the evidence closely.
 * As for saying one thing in private and another in public: it is possible to both be right and reasonable and also be feuding engaging in unproductive process at the same time.  If I am chatting with a user offline I may tell them that they have potentially valid concerns, but raising those concerns on wiki may be unwise because they will be viewed as feuding personal conflict or carrying on a dispute well beyond it's usefulness.
 * I think it would be helpful to everyone who wants to put together an opinion of you as a candidate to stop going oh, but he broke my confidence as if you were Krystle Carrington wounded by the spars of Alexis and put that aside and actually respond to issues instead of dodging with the hurt feelings. ArbCom is a pretty nasty place and people are going to critique you a lot more than they already have; hopefully you'll be able to handle the road ahead should you get that seat. Mike H. Fierce! 11:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't respond further without raising a host of issues that involve third parties and that would be better left dead and buried. I simply won't reignite past disputes in an effort to get elected.  The success of my candidacy is not worth the damage to Wikipedia of going down that path, nor am I going to talk about other people's behavior, nor am I going to address FT2's behavior.  This page is about my behavior only.  If you want to vote against me because of my approach, you can. My final answer is necessarily general: FT2 has misunderstood or misrepresented what I said and did. Jehochman Talk 14:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is evidenced poor conduct within the last few months, and unambiguous admitted gaming of RFAR. It is disappointing that you refuse to discuss it on its own merits. FT2 (Talk 18:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Can we agree to disagree?  This conversation has reached a deadlock.  You're asking me to comment on what I think is an inaccurate representation of my statements, evidence I have not seen and I don't want to get drawn into a discussion of complex disputes involving third parties.  It is not fair to them to discuss their business here.  It is unwise to re-raise old conflicts that are happily dormant.  I am not interested in feuding with you.  May I direct your attention to this content which says "it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions."  You've asked.  I've answered.  If you don't like my answer, you may vote against me. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From the nature of concern, it isn't a matter of "agree to disagree". There's a point where a serious claim needs daylight shed on it. The "big picture":


 *  A past of gaming RFAR and making unfounded claims at Arbcom Election is relevant.


 * To double-check the concerns, I asked advice from more than one checkuser/oversighter – the most senior and privacy-empowered users I could ask other than Arbitrators (who would be in a difficult position individually). It was hard to see how your public position might have merit, but WP:AGF. They will not pass the evidence around; as usual that was a condition of seeking private views. The bottom line is two functionaries now (and a third in private) have come to the conclusion your (public) words don't add up, balanced against the evidence. One of them (Alison) has since posted a comment, actually stronger than the one I'd written – so much for "misunderstanding". FT2 (Talk 10:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that any functionary would come to such a conclusion without hearing my side of the story. Nobody has contacted me. That's not the sort of thing I'd do if I were a functionary. I don't listen to one side of a dispute and then render a conclusion. The voters will have to decide if they believe you or me.  Furthermore, this page is not for dispute resolution.  Jehochman Talk 10:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's called "evidence", Jehochman. So far your 'side of the story' has mainly been claims of near-malice, misreading plain evidence, triviality, or bad faith. This isn't about dispute resolution; you are a self-declared candidate in an election, asked to explain evidenced discrepancies and disturbing conduct.


 * I'm done on this page. The concerns aren't answered – and other checkusers/oversighters see it even stronger than I given the evidence. FT2 (Talk 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

 * Comment: I wish to indicate my respect for all of Jehochman's contributions. I believe that he has done a fine job taking a firm stance against problem users, and in other ways shown his fitness for the Committee.  I want to support him.  The only factor that makes me uncertain is his seeming tendency to get drawn into disputes that border on non-genial.  The ongoing FT2-Jehochman-Others Saga has come up at several seemingly unrelated venues this past year.  In addition, his quasi-feud with certain EEML participants may show this propensity for almost unfriendly behavior.  I suspect Jehochman may have been in the right in these instances, yet has he shown inappropriate levels of unfriendliness in his responses?  He is certainly not combatative, but have his responses in these few areas been so excessively businesslike such that they have deprecated collaborative relationships.  I continue to ponder... —  Finn   Casey  * 05:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I have an ongoing struggle between my tendency to state things very plainly, and the better course of action, which is to consider peoples' feelings and answer in a way that avoids needless offense. You'll notice that I frequently tweak my comments to make them more congenial. As for EEML, have a look at this conversation.  You could also ask User:SandyGeorgia what she thinks of me now.  Our first interaction here was less than stellar (check my stricken comments to her).  While my initial reactions may be less than perfect, I am pretty good at forgiving and moving past disagreements. Jehochman Talk 05:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Followup from Alison
Ok. I have been contacted by FT2 over this matter. He's in a bit of a bind as he's basically unable to post this to the sitting Arbitrators, given that this is an ArbCom election, and that they are unable to intervene due to their conflict of interest surrounding the election (ArbCom investigates an ArbCom candidate??) Because of this, FT2 contacted me, gave me the logs without comment, pointed me to his questions to Jehochman, and asked my opinion.

As one of the few non-Arb Functionaries, I'm held in a position of trust in dealing with privacy and trust-related information, while remaining outside of ArbCom. Having said that, I will not distribute these logs (I'm keeping a copy just in case I need to show what I've read), and I refuse to post anything on-wiki. Folks - please don't even ask. All in all, it's an awkward situation - FT2 can't post the logs on-wiki, and is reluctant to forward them on as they're private. The question now is; do these logs tally with what's being said on-wiki, by both FT2 and by you?

I have reviewed the two logs in question, in full, and note the following;


 * In question 1, you say "You've seriously misrepresented what I said." From reading your responses in the logs, it's clear here that FT2 has not misrepresented what you said, which is clear and unequivocal. I honestly cannot read it any other way.


 * In the answer to the second question, you state that FT2 was being disingenuous in linking to a draft copy of your comments on-wiki, and that he is currently motivated by "personal grievances". However, minutes after posting that comment on -wiki, you state unequivocally in the log that he may actually be 100% correct in what he has said. You did say that. What's even stranger is that you state two minutes later that you say you know that FT2 was not capable of grudge bearing, its not being in his nature. However, you point out that others may not know that. The only way I can possibly interpret that statement is that you were clearly saying that you believe one thing (FT2s not being disingenuous and grudge-motivated) while writing something completely at variance to this, because you knew other, less clued-in folks would believe your on-wiki answer, even though you knew that it was untrue. I view this as lying on-wiki, to smear FT2s name and to wiggle out of your own clear faux-pas. Of course, you're counting on the fact that it's his word against yours. However, the complete logs clearly show the truth here.

In short, I see you as being deliberately deceptive in the middle of an ArbCom election bid (both in 2008 and now), and in Elonka's RfC last year; you're also expressing one thing privately whilst saying something completely different in public. Something else which you clearly know to be false or misleading. Based on the evidence here, I feel that most of your summation post is hard to see as anything other than deliberate community deception and blackening of a user who you know cannot post evidence publicly. This is not something I wish to see in an arbitrator, and I suspect the community doesn't either.

I've no particular interest in this myself - I was just called upon to review it without any prior discussion and in confidence and give him my honest opinion whatever that would be, which I now have. My interest in ArbCom this year is around BLP issues and child safety; possible COPPA compliance, personal info redaction, etc. I'm working on those questions, which I'll pose to each candidate just as soon as I get it together here :) This issue derailed me a bit. In the meantime, I would welcome Jehochman giving assent to other neutral, trusted third parties to review the matter.

Have you any comment to make on this? - A l l i e  ❤ 06:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: To clarify, per request - this is my position as an editor who is generally held in trust as a functionary, and not in my role as checkuser/oversighter - A l l i e  ❤ 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'd rather this was left up-front and not moved to the talk page as it's directly germane to FT2s questions above.


 * I already gave assent to User:SirFozzie and User:Hersfold to review the matter, weeks ago. They are pretty trustworthy. The process seems to have broken down through no fault of my own. Perhaps you could contact them and we could all have a discussion about it.  I am really keen to resolve this.   I've not seen the log files yet. If somebody would share them with me, that might refresh my memory.  Any lawyer would tell me not to, but I'll try to explain directly, though I am working from memory, which might be less than reliable.


 * My belief of FT2 at the time was that he sincerely believed he was acting in good faith, but that he lacked self-awareness. At times he as appeared to me to be acting based on a tenacious motivation to bring justice to people he perceived as malefactors.  When speaking with him as he filed the Bishonen RFC, I tried to connect by sympathizing with his point of view, and to discourage what I thought was an unwise venture.  On the RfC, I said this initially and this finally.  What do you call a dispute when Bishonen perceives a feud, FT2 thinks it's not a feud, and an objective observer would call it a feud? I don't actually know FT2's mind.  I know what he told me, but I was not sure whether to believe him. It looked like a feud from an objective point of view, so that's what I called it.  What was going through his mind is largely irrelevant; we have to run the encyclopedia based on manifest behavior.   FT2 may have had legitimate criticisms.  It is possible to be correct and to be feuding at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive conditions.  There is such a thing as a WP:LAME dispute, one that should not be pursued.  If everybody who was right pursued every grievance to the bitter end, the encyclopedia would fall apart.  At some point people need to recognize when to drop the stick. It appeared that FT2 wanted to raise issues that had already been the subject of arbitration committee review.  Even if he was 100% correct in asserting that Bishonen know of Geogre's socking, the RfC did not make sense at that stage.  To me it looked like grave dancing, filed shortly after this abrupt stoppage.  I was conflicted between friendship with FT2, and rather extreme abhorrence at what he was doing.


 * I am sorry on two counts:
 * FT2 may have accurately represented my words. I should not have said he misrepresented me.  I did not have the logs to check.  What I should have said is that he misrepresented my motives.
 * Further, it was my fault for failing to communicate clearly with FT2. He apparently found my communications to be inconsistent. This left him feeling upset about me, and has caused much needless strife, and the possible loss of a friend.


 * As for matters of 2008 dispute resolution steps I took, I have vowed not to repeat those mistakes. I was acting in what I thought was a proper way, but subsequently realized my actions were not proper.  I stopped, and do not want to risk a resumption of that stale feud.  Therefore, I will not comment further on that matter.  There is nothing to be gained.


 * Alison, thank you for helping to shed some light on these matters. You provided a very good summary of the concerns. I wish I'd received such a summary at an earlier stage. (In fact, I asked FT2 for a summary at the end of October, but he never responded with one.)  Would you please consider refactoring your remarks to remove the assertions you've made about my mental state.  Unless Checkuser/Oversight conveys the power of mental telepathy (that would be so cool!), you can not say which you clearly know to be false or misleading and other remarks about my motives. We are here to write an encyclopedia, to help each other and to try to get along. Whatever little accommodations we can make for each other should be done. There are enough bad guys out there that we don't need to fight amongst ourselves. Jehochman Talk 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this here subthread here from the main page, which is for questions for the candidate. Let's try to keep discussion here please. Skomorokh, barbarian   20:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Jehochman's clear and calm response to the serious allegations raised. The encyclopedia project is much greater than this one election.  It presents a concerning picture when a respected administrator is accused of gross misconduct by two highly-trusted functionaries.  At first, it seemed that either Jehochman was guilty of deceptive practices or else he was the victim of a highly coordinated smear campaign - both of those possibilities are very disturbing.  However, his explanation opens the way to a third explanation: simple miscommunication.  I have not decided with certainty how I will vote, yet I must say that Jehochman's acceptance of responsibility and reasoned reply shows a certain suitability for the Committee.  In any event, I agree that "we don't need to fight amongst ourselves". —  Finn   Casey  * 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Followup by FT2

 * Jehochman: There is little to no scope for "misunderstanding". You made unequivocal statements "I did X" and "I view this as X", and other statements that raised concerns. You later told the community, at our most senior election, that you had never done X, or did not view things as X, and that it was mere rumor. The two are irreconcilable. When challenged you made claims that others were making stuff up, that you almost certainly knew were false, then claimed "log privacy" and "misrepresentation". That is probably why Alison used such strong words as "deliberate community deception".


 * Nothing in the logs Alison's seen infringes third parties, except a tangential mention of a specific on-wiki case (no personal information or quotation). The only third party even tangentially mentioned or discussed in the relevant snips (Elonka) has given full permission, as do I. I have already asked her to confirm this for the record on-wiki. Personally I prefer 100% public eyeballs. Alison has also confirmed that you and I (alone) may decide if the key logs will be posted on wiki for others to review, as nobody else is affected or infringed.


 * FT2 (Talk 10:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for feuding, it's for writing articles. (added) This dispute is very distant from any articles. I'm not taking the bait to resuming old conflicts with the editor you mention corresponding with. My opinion counts too. Even if the other party wants to resume the fight, I too have a say in the matter, and I won't fight. I've now asked several times for you to email me said logs, but you have not done so. Jehochman Talk 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I still don't have the complete logs, only a few snips. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, considering the way that you are continuing to follow me around the wiki and stir the pot wherever possible, I would disagree with your assessment that this is an "old conflict". From my point of view, your harassment of me is still ongoing, and has continued as recently as this month (and yes of course I have diffs).  I'd been doing my best to ignore you at every turn, but it's looking like the truth of your behavior towards me is (again) coming out, and I agree strongly with FT2 that this behavior is not the kind of behavior that we should see in an arbitrator. So please cease these claims of it being an "old" conflict, or how it's not fair to discuss a "third party".  I'm that third party, and I give my permission to be discussed.  Discuss away.  :) --Elonka 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Continually mischaracterizing a legitimate concern of multiple users as "bait" or "feuding", is not exactly good evidence of how an Arb should act.


 * Your "fighting" is not sought. Your honest discussion of abuse concerns evidenced by your own words and actions, for which you have never provided a valid reason and which you have blustered, evaded, characterized as trivial or bad faith, and (in another Checkuser/Oversighter's words) deceived the community about, is (by contrast) long overdue.


 * I will email you to discuss how this can be opened to community review. FT2 (Talk 14:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting stale as shit. Either post the logs or don't. Either email him the logs or don't. The biovating is tiring. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As an arbitrator that received 67 votes of no confidence on the Arbitration Committee Feedback page, you are in no position to tell a candidate how an arbitrator should act. The arbitration committee is not theatre. Vodello (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that FT2 is threatening to find a way to block me with a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry on my talk page, so I will be striking my comment to avoid further cyber bullying. I would prefer to not be banned from the project for an alleged violation based on a false presumption. Vodello (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A better reason to strike would be as the 67 votes dont mean what you say they do. Given the number of folk round here who seem to enjoy the sport of witch hunting, all in the name of encyclopaedic values, its not suprising someone like FT2 has a few detractors. I dont know Jehochman well enough to say what side hes playing for, but he is a player and very capable; now I see he's been attacking Elonka that makes him the only person I know of who's attacked no fewer than 3 good natured admins. Most concerning. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - striking as while strongly disagreeing with instances alluded to above, ive now seen enough evidence to think he may be a net  +ve as an arb,  a role not suited to the innocent and where its good to have folk not afraid to criticise popular editors when they feel thats justified. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask me about any specific incident that concerns you, and please have a look through my contribution history. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Contribs seem first class, which makes the 3 incidents all the more concerning in the context of promotion to arbritation. I'll sleep on it and email you a question, as I agree its best to be careful when discussing 3rd parties (the question wont in any way prompt for specific information on them, but I'll mention them so you can understand and maybe address my concern ). FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Novickas comments
Follow up to Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Jehochman/Questions_for_the_candidate

Thanks for the replies. I have a few problems with them. a) thanks for re-posting and addressing R.'s question. Your answer isn't quite direct enough for my taste - there's a fair amount of evidence posted and several arbs have discussed the ethical issues. Do you feel there isn't enough case information currently available for you to make a judgement? b) The talk page discussion is really indirect and confusing - probably a fair number of readers know what you two are talking about, but I don't. You imply that some third parties would unwillingly be drawn in. Guess I'll assume good faith about that. c) Given the tenses you used yesterday - "I believe in WP:TLDR and also if I look at evidence and the first few diffs don't verify, I may stop." - a refactor there would be reassuring. d) the use of the word drama. You used the term yourself yesterday in a dispute on this talk page - "reignite a bunch of dramas". Again, a refactor would be reassuring. If, in your opinion, responding to this would be undue here, feel free to move it to the talk page. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am aim to be agreeable whenever possible:
 * a) I've de-weaseled my answer, in part. Until I get all the info, I will not second guess their decision.  On it's face, it seems to be a correct decision.
 * b) I am sorry for that conversation. I will review it and see if there is any way to make things more clear to the reader.
 * c) Yes, thank you, that sentence needs copy editing. I will fix it.
 * d) Sometimes things are not clear until somebody else points them out. You made an excellent point about the word drama and I think I will adopt your suggestion.
 * Thank you for the help. I appreciate it and have made changes. Jehochman Talk 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking back it seems we agreed about the use of another loaded word, meatpuppet. If you're elected I hope you'll continue responding that quickly. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)