User talk:Lar/Archive 16#DYK 2

:On second thoughts, not sure anybody can be expected to notice anything on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop, so crossposting my message for lar here,hope that's OK. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

(If you could stick to the same formatting style as others in the thread and avoid excessive indents it would be helpful... I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do... sigh.) Is that the only meaning for yellow star? Is it the meaning Fred intended? If it is, what exactly did he mean by it? If he meant that there are some here who are trying to demonise ArbCom, the crats, the power structure here, and so forth (something amply demonstrated elsewhere in evidence, and your own cohort admits they are fomenting for radical change) then it's a correct analogy but in no way an apt one, because in today's society, there is a form of Godwin's law in effect for any analogy to the holocaust or anything even remotely related. You mention it, you blow it... as an example, what do you think of this cartoon: [http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/stories/popups/060502_s5f1.htm]? did Leunig blow making his point with that reference? Many think he did. (His point is not a point I agree with, by the way, but I can see what he is getting at) I think before you condemn Fred (and, by your attempted extension above, me) for a view, you ought to be sure it's actually held. For the record I don't think being a clerk here is akin to being actually actively persecuted in real life, much less the way the Holocaust horrifically and tragically victims were, but I do think there are those that want to stigmatise clerks, make them wear markings (or recuse themselves unnecessarily) so they are so constrained in what they can do and say that their effectiveness is hampered, and in general these folk are not working to support the activities of clerks here. Yourself and your clique included. Fred's remark pointing this out, that there are those who want to so constrain clerks by marking them was less than apt but not a blockable offense, unless bad analogies are now blockable. Your characterisations of me (foolish, incompetent, et al), on the other hand were certainly beyond the pale, were certainly blockable if not redacted and if you continued to be incivil (which you did), and should have been formally apologised for by you in an appropriate time and place. They weren't. So you have little standing to criticise others for incivility or ill tempered remarks. Motes and beams and all that. You'd be better served to tend to your own issues, for they are many, than raise issues with others. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"I fixed your formatting for you, as I so often do...sigh". Plumbing some new depths of pettiness, Lar? What's the matter with you? Giano's dyslexic, isn't it obvious? When you take a look at yourself, do you really see a man who "comports himself" with civility at all times, as you like to say? Look more closely. I have tried to avoid prolonging your grudge against Giano by not speaking on this issue before, however many sideswipes at me you get in, but that sigh was too much. The grudge seems capable of prolonging itself indefinitely anyway, so what the hell. You don't have to worry about any repetition of this. I'm a believer in speaking once on a subject, so hopefully you and others will excuse me if I speak more fully than usual. Are you as proud as you seem of the phrase "no free pass", in relation to Giano? Has it ever struck you that to say "there are no free passes" every time you find occasion to attack Giano (which is a lot of occasions, together with occasion to mention how civil you are, and the barnstar you got for being so civil?) is a lot like saying "and btw I'm against evil, too", somewhere in every post? There's nobody on the other side. Nobody thinks that being an excellent content contributor should get a user a "free pass" from civility. Or have you come across an instance of a person who claims it? Implies it? (diff?) Have you noticed that nobody replies to your no free pass stuff? They ignore it and move on. In your evidence on the evidence page, you say that you have been quoted as saying that no editor ought to get a free pass etc—quoted, really? You have certainly been quoted in a sense: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/Proposed_principles&diff=prev&oldid=79041619] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact&diff=prev&oldid=79054587] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact&diff=prev&oldid=78947016] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact&diff=prev&oldid=78917866] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=76774058] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=76779279] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi/admin_right_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=77561726] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=78358441] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=76403077] —but quoted by somebody other than yourself, you mean? Incidentally, have you read Giano's evidence? If not, please take a look at what he says in the fourth paragraph, about being upset by the "constant reference to my boasts of contributions." Do you see where it says "I don't think anywhere have I ever mentioned my own perceived value to the project". Do you say he lies? And about his evidence altogether, not that I expect you to be moved by it, but have you thought at all about the situation of being at the center of this particular RFAR? To the point where it bears your name? Did you consider imposing a moratorium on yourself for this particular time, or was it just an opportunity? Would you consider it now? Bishonen | talk 17:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

:I got your message, I saw it. I mailed you about it, in fact, and I would be delighted to carry out a constructive dialog about your concerns via email, or on IRC, or here, or even there, as you choose. Since this material is there, per my talk page policy I probably will remove it from here and replace it with a link back to there, as duplicated conversations are not good, unless you have strong objections and would rather it were raised here only. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

::If you're ready for constructive dialogue, I recommend you have it with your conscience. Your discussion above of the "yellow star" thing makes me ashamed. If that's "good faith", then it's rank ignorance. Did you ask yourself whether you or Giano are likely to know more about European antisemitism and its associated rhetoric and symbolism? No, you didn't, right? Because it's Giano, so he has to be wrong, because he ought to have apologized back when and you're going to chew the cud of your grievance till he does, right? I've said I believe in speaking once; after your request for dialogue I thought it right to post this second time (which was probably foolish of me); please don't expect a third. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:::And this gang warfare is helping Wikipedia how? (Gang warfare it is; I see Giano and George all over your talk page). Why don't you go work on some articles? (Something I don't see in your recent contribs). That's what we're supposed to be here for. --kingboyk 11:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Steve, it's OK. Bishonen, we are all guilty of jumping to assumptions sometimes. I'm not sure it's constructive to show sores and say who hurt more but maybe you didn't know that my mother and father lived through WW II as adults, on opposite sides, before they came to the US, so I'm not exactly completely ignorant of the issues in that area.

::::If you think I'm just "chewing my cud" in hoping that Giano will show others what he wants shown to him, some understanding of their point of view, and some apology when he has wronged them, then maybe you're right, maybe there's no basis to discuss things... maybe looking for some sign that Giano is sorry is a waste of time, but I'd hope that you might admit that none of us is perfect and that all of us could stand to maybe consider that they're not always right all the time. Maybe I myself am in some ways like Giano in that, and maybe we all are. But I'm at least willing to consider the possibility, and talk openly about that possibility. What I see on YOUR talk page, and that of your close associates is a lot of mockery, snide commentary about others, even ridicule, and I'm not sure how that helps move anyone forward, unless you all are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong. But isn't that exactly what you're accusing everyone else? We can't all be 100% right.

::::For what it's worth I wrote an article yesterday. It wasn't much of an article, and it will never make featured, but the encyclopedia needed it. So I'm sympathetic to the notion that we are indeed here to write. I miss writing. It's why I came here, believe it or not, as I had had enough of meta things in my previous experiences... But my article production of late has been terrible. There are only so many words a day in me, I guess... This whole mess is a big waste of words and time, except for revealing who is perhaps not here in the best interests of the project. But that depends on who is measuring doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::And I see Bishonen and ALoan and Giano on Lar's talk page, oh noes. Come on, man. When the current nastiness arose, it arose in stages, and people reacted various ways. Some people shouted as they slammed the door (Giano) and left. Some took on the controversial task of pursuing an RFAR. Some left the project entirely. Some left but simply changed accounts. Some went on public strikes for a short time (me) or a longer time (Paul August). Finally, some people felt that even announcing a strike was too public, too inauthentic, that it would amount to a theatrical gesture, and simply withdrew contributions silently. Seeing a lack of contributions from anyone in the wake of this horror show (which you are contributing to demonstrably with the epithets, and as Lar has by inserting "no free pass" when no one has asked for it or mentioned it or made a differential of contributions an issue) should never be construed as laziness or lack of commitment, especially when it's someone as energetic and even tempered as Bishonen. Geogre 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Well the thing is, Geogre... I used to have quite the respect for your clique, remember? I used to hang on Bishonen's page too. But when Giano savaged me for having an opinion, and he never apologised, (but instead went around saying BS things like he had to change his vote because of it.. what nonsense!) and I saw your clique draw together and stick up for him instead of calling him on his behaviour, it sure seemed like he THOUGHT he had a free pass. And when later I saw the very phrase itself being mocked instead of the issue addressed, that's when I lost the last bit of respect for your clique. Sure you're all great article writers but you just have all went too far lately with this insurrection thing. You can earn my respect back, but right now you don't have it. In fact I'll go so far as to say that Bishonen isn't very good at acknowledging fault that she finds in others. ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to "mockery, snide commentary about others, even ridicule". I am sure everyone has said and done things that they regret. Yes, this has been a massive distraction, and, yes, the encyclopedia has undoubtedly suffered, but it seems to be moving to some sort of resolution.

Can we please have that group hug now, and start valuing each others' contributions? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:Well it is unfortunate that you're not interested in responding to that, because I see cliquish snidery as a big problem. Bishonen's clique isn't the only one, but admitting it is a valid observation about what is going on, rather than a whitewash of "well everyone does bad things sometimes" would help a lot in convincing me there's any sort of acknowledgement that that particular clique, without explicitly saying so, perhaps does feel a bit of "freepassishness". I wonder how long before that turn of phrase gets mocked too? (I note everyone keeps saying Giano never said he has a free pass. Well, hey, I never said he said it either... only that he acts like he believes it... what else would that big red box be about if not to denigrate those who are not as prolific article writers as he is?)

:I find group hugs singularly ineffective for doing anything other than papering over differences and leaving a bigger blowup later, unless there is first some sort of resolution. I'm not seeing that movement toward resolution coming from your faction, as I'm not seeing any mea culpa, which is a first step. I AM seeing a lot of missing the point though, and a lot of pot-kettle-blackishness. Bishonen rips into me, above, without having actually read what I said, apparently, for if she had, she would not speak the way she did. Well, I'm willing to keep trying... but no hugs without resolution first. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I am not sure how helpful it is to respond to accusations of being snide, mocking, and ridiculing, as it is simply going to prolong the argument and spill even more ink. But as you asked:

::Who are you numbering in Bishonen's "clique", by the way? Her talk page is frequented by goodness knows how many contributors, mainly because of the interesting conversations that you find there. I guess you are talking about me and Giano and Geogre, at least. Yes, I value Giano and Bishonen and Geogre (and many others) very much for the endless high-quality contributions that they make, and, yes, I would be willing to cut them more slack than some others because of that. Not a "free pass" - simply shared values, and understanding where they are coming from, and the pressures that they are under from day to day. I would be surprised if you did not show more consideration and have more understanding of people with whom you interact more regularly. I am also a member of the WP:CRIC clique, and the WP:FAC clique, and the WP:FLC clique, and other cliques too, no doubt. Do I give them all one of these fabled "free passes"?

::However, I generally don't need to cut Giano and Bishonen and Geogre any slack, because they generally don't indulge in the behaviour you are talking about. Yes, Bishonen and Geogre are "rouge" from time to time, and Giano has his moments (he and I have had our disagreements in the past - IIRC, mainly about Tony1's rather abrasive copyediting style - and Tony still does excellent work, like many people, without enough recognition). We are all people. We all make mistakes. (I am being castigated on my talk page right now for giving up the fight on the name of a Paris list - a lame argument if ever there was one. I wish I had the energy, but you can't win them all.)

::To be clear: I entirely understand why Giano was upset about Carnildo's re-promotion, and I think Taxman was wrong to do promote him: there was not clear consensus to do so that I can see. I also understand why Giano felt impelled to strike out verbally, but I think he said some wrong things, and went too far on some occasions, as did John Reid. (It did take several prods with a sharp stick to get hime going, though. Petrol was thrown onto the flames several times just as they were dying down.) I think Geogre was entirely justified in picking up the baton on this issue, and I think he said what needed to be said in the way that it needed to be said to achieve any action. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:::My beef with Giano is with how he treated me before the promotion, and how he bucked against anyone telling him he was out of line. Yes, he got a raw deal from Carnildo, but that's no reason to savage me. ++Lar: t/c 05:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lar, I have tried to stay away from you and your page, bit sometimes your air of wounded innocence and righteousness becomes just too much to bear. The predicament in which you find yourself is entirely of your own making. Speaking entirely for myself I do not care two spits for your respect. I do not require it, I do not want it. You seem to have a very confused idea of why we are all here, I have no wish to make new and exiting friends (I have enough of those in RL) and I do not crave or need the respect of anyone.

When on Carnildo's RFA you described him as "someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. Hearty support ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" I disagreed vehemently and told you so. You yourself wrote "what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time" so you knew exactly what you were doing. You expected that remark to cause trouble and it did! Now please stop this act of wounded innocence because it cuts no ice whatsoever.

You seem to think I was out of line. I was not. I merely told you my opinion in a public place of a comment by you in an equally public place. Our argument/difference of opinion was no worse than any legitimate debate in the Senate or Camera dei Deputati - it was actually no big deal. You are making it one.

Since I made my feelings clear you have followed me around the encyclopedia repeating ad nauseum "No free passes" until you have begun to sound like a demented school bus attendant. Perhaps this is why people are beginning to laugh. It seems to me that you consider anyone who does not feel so passionately about "Free passes" is "snide, mocking, and ridiculing" but at least all I say is open and evident. Are the IRC logs between you, Kylu and Kelly Martin etc so open to scrutiny? So please Lar drop this holier than thou attitude because you are wasting your energies. Go and post your views on me, Bishonen, Geogre et al on IRC where I'm sure they will be better received by a more receptive, admiring and respect giving public Giano 11:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:You persist in trying to spin this your way. It wasn't that you disagreed with me, it was that you felt it necessary to be very incivil in doing so. That you do not see that you were incivil in the face of many folk tell you so is your predicament, not mine. That you don't see fit to apologise is also your predicament, not mine. There's not much more to say beyond that, except that if you think calling someone a fool, incompetent, devious, etc. is "merely telling your opinion", you are sadly misguided as to what civility is. And that your friends don't get that... that they persist in sticking up for you... that's their predicament, not mine. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You both need to understand that it is not possible for both of you to have the last word in this disagreement. Somebody needs to stop, please. FloNight 12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:These people turned up on my talk page again to give me a hard time... on my own talk page I'll probably be able to get the last word, I think. But I've well and truly said all there is to say. Giano doesn't get that he did anything wrong, I get that, yes. Casting this as a last word issue only as you do seriously misses the point. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, Lar. I did not mean to annoy you, really. I'm just frustrated and more than ready for this whole affair to be done. Peace. ;-) FloNight 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Read your offer to mediate on the name dispute on the above-mentioned article.

Just wanted to wish you good luck, it seems to be a daunting task... Regards, --Adriano 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, thanks. we shall see... ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Adriano, don't come on here so fast and scare the poor guy. :P We all just try our professional best to provide him good info to go by, give him the power of a Judge, and well, we should at least get a decision! All anyone can blame then is... Lar. :)))) ps. and then you'll ban us all, right? Thanks again for helping out Lar. Taalo 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick note: be sure to check edit histories since there have been several instances of talk page comment removal. Some removals have been reverted, some have not. I look forward to seeing how you handle this. Good luck! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey-lo. I wanted to bring this to your attention:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEmpire_of_Atlantium_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=79454015&oldid=79451805]

It's the only uncollegial thing User:Averette's done for a couple of days, but he's not over it yet. Georgewilliamherbert 00:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:That one is actually funny. It only lacks a smiley. But... so, are you a sock? Don't I know you from the unblock mailing list? you mean we've had a sock there all along??? eep! 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)~

::Darn it, you've caught me out. I spend 18 hours a day working hard in San Francisco, then fly 22 hours to Australia and work 18 hours a day there, and then fly back around 26 hours the long ways to San Francisco. I think i'm missing a few days a week there, but it's all... Wait. What year is this? Georgewilliamherbert 06:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to know your thoughts about something... apparently SPUI is leaving as he blanked his user and talk pages. The question is, do we revert his blanking his talk page? Since it has warnings and stuff... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:Typically not. Users exercise right to leave all the time. The presumption is that if the user isn't currently in need of warnings, the user has seen the warnings that are being blanked. The only time to restore pages is if there is reason to believe the warnings haven't been seen, or that other admins need to see them beacuse it's an ongoing incident... All IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I came across the above article via the Random feature. I should be grateful if you could look at the points raised on the talk page. To me the article looks useful, but in need of wikifying - however as the article was created and almost solely edited by the subject matter I think the matter needs reviewing by someone more experienced in Wiki. I would note that the editor/subject has also created articles on organisations he is involved in - again probably legit subjects. If you can respond on the talkpage I will see it as I am watching it. I would be prepared to do what I can if you think the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks.LessHeard vanU 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. Gave my thinking in a reply to your talk. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hate to bug you again... but now NE2 is bringing up the topic again. He will not listen to consensus... WT:USSH.

BTW thanks so much for your beyond the call work relating to WP:SRNC! We appreciate your willingness to be involved in a contentious sitiation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing else important to say. Cheers big ears. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman^{L}] 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. I can't take full credit. Jossi used them first (in a Phaedriel special)... but I figured out how to have one template change based on what page it is on... ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I only caught this comment now:

• Endorse close Per badlydrawnjeff finding of "Result was correct" but with rejection of "process was broken every step of the way". The result matters. not the process... ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• DRV is about process, not result. That's why I phrased it the way I did. Just wanted to make you you knew I didn't miss it in the event you were waiting on a response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hi everybody! Little "butt in" here from the DRV lunatic. DRV has a notice at its top that the page is primarily about process, and that notice is a good thing, because it reminds people not to re-argue the AfD. That said, IMO, DRV is about a careful balancing of process and merit. A result right on the merits can stand in the event of a minor defect in process (the occasional use of WP:SNOW is one example Jeff will know well), but not a major defect in process (wheel-warring, etc.) As we all know, the ends do not justify the means, and a grossly improper path to the "correct" result is damaging to the community.
• DRV sees comments to this effect all the time (Despite some small quibbles, let result stand), and I certainly don't ignore them because they fail to discuss process. Process is important, but it isn't everything. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I did not see a major defect in this process and I am more concerned about policy than process, and more concerned about results than process. My comments stand. I suggest that focusing on process as much as Badlydrawnjeff does is detrimental to the encyclopedia. For that reason I wasn't really waiting for a response since I already had some idea of what it would be. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe you'd be willing to explain why it's detrimental? You're not the first person who's made a claim like that, but you're the first person who's said so that I respect. Could you expand on it for me? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for a major explanation. But I'd point to my RfA... my early history here was colored by my participation in an AFD, in which I was quite process centric in my thinking that things went awry, and a subsequent RfAr. But my thinking of late has changed a lot since then. It is colored by WP:IAR, WP:WONK, WP:ROUGE, WP:SNOW and in general WP:NOT. Process is important. it helps ensure fairness. But process needs to be subordinate to policy. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and all process, even all policy, must be measured against, does it help move the project forward efficiently. Excessive re DRVing, re AFDing things... seems like process for its own sake. If it's obvious that things need to go, if it's against policy to have things, even consensus sometimes doesn't matter, consensus does not override legal consids for example... hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'll be honest - not really, but I appreciate you taking the time in any case. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well, fair enough. I guess I explained more of why I feel the way I do about process, etc, instead of addressing why the "opposite" view, to excess, is bad for the wiki, bad for the project. Sorry for not quite addressing your question, let me try again. What I will say is this... we're here to write an encyclopedia. That requires many voices, many viewpoints, and we may disagree about what should and shouldn't be in, and all sorts of things. But that's our primary focus, writing this thing. We all contribute in different ways (my article production is terrible of late... although I just jazzed up my home town's article with some pictures today) but the point is, we need to contribute. Excessive process seems to (obviously to me anyway??) impede that. If the same basically not very valuable article goes through the same or similar process multiple times, that seems to take time we could use elsewhere, to detract from things that are maybe more important... helping contentious parties work through POV issues, helping build tools to make things easier for writers and fact checkers, doing vandal fighting, addressing copyright issues, improving referencing, and formatting, rating and improving articles, and adding articles for areas where we are weak. It's a matter of time and how we spend it. I see AfD as a necessary evil, not as my main area of interest (the 'pedia is a hobby for me after all, as it is for most of us). I see political posturing and railing against injustice (c.f. several of the current RfArs) as not helping get the encyclopedia written. (except when not stopping injustice drives valuable contributors away, so balance is required). Five years from now, that little girl in the Congo on her hand cranked laptop... she isn't going to care how many times List of Simpsons one episode characters went through AfD. But she IS going to care about how good the references in the Drought Resistant Maize strains article are. That's where we should focus. Does that help? ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Lar and I have discussed this before, so I'm not worried about him; but, for the record, beware heavy reliance on IAR, for that is the path to the dark side (specifically, the dark side of WP:DICK.) ;) Xoloz 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I also did not see a major defect in process (hence my closing), but it was a close call, because User:Parssseltongue has been making mischief by closing AfDs as an involved non-admin. That's fairly troubling, and I modified the AfD closure by hand to strike PT's "extracurricular" observations. Still, non-admins do regularly close speedy keeps on AfD renominations that are too rapid, so PT was not that far out-of-line. I appreciate Jeff's attention to these questions, though; even when I disagree, I recognize that it is important to note the manner in which a deed is done, as well as the merit of the deed. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lar. {{user|Mike Selinker}} is very active over at CFD, and I think it would be of benefit to the project if he were an admin. He has no interest in fighting vandals or the like and doesn't actively seek adminship; it's my idea having seen him have to pass jobs over admins he could easily do himself.

I was ready to nominate but I see he's not been very hot on edit summaries. Should I ask him to address that and defer this, or nominate anyway? Would you take a look at his contribs etc and see what you think about my nominating this user at this time?

As I said, it's pretty much a "this is Mike, he does great work at CFD and we should give him the delete button", probably with a co-nom. --kingboyk 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'd suggest waiting till he can say "I used to not use summaries but now I do because I understand" ... the way that RfA is these days, they pounce on any lame thing. I'll look at his contribs. ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

{{user|The Dumbest Man Alive}} has received a civility and an NPOV warning from me. I'd prefer if someone else also kept an eye on him, as his userpage also could be interpreted as him following a special agenda. Fingers crossed. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:This one has rather a thin contrib history, let me give a boo and see. Only too happy to help, of course. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Big Brother? Is that you? I've heard so much about you. Let me be the first to say that I will thouroughly enjoy basking under the benevolent protection provided by your watchful eye. May we all learn to profit from your wisdom and majesty. --The Dumbest Man Alive 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Old email borked, can't seem to fix it. I checked my hotmail, but to my sorrow only "I can make your penis grow" missives. Tell your mother to stop writing me. Anyway, try aaron_david_brenneman AT hotmail.com. - brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman^{L}] 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Or just try clicking <--- that e-mail again as opposed to the previous account. I've just confirmed a new address, I have no idea if it's working...
brenneman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman^{L}] 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Refactored to User_talk:Interrobamf#Warning and replied to there. Please confine further replies to there. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lar, after your well balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATobias_Conradi&diff=80021315&oldid=80009648 comment] (thanks very much for that), I assumed Tobias had given up his campaign. Unfortunately [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser%2FCheckPage&diff=81152897&oldid=81079730 he hasn't]. I genuinely don't know what to do about it, in my experience (and many others judging from his talk page) he is difficult to properly deal with. I think he has some sort of grudge against admins, I see the phrase "admin abuse" used by him a lot, I don't want to get dragged into his campaign, but he is proving impossible to ignore as well. thanks Martin 10:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm on his list of abusive admins already. I'll review matters and if I take action, put it up for review at WP:AN/I, as always. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::His edits aren't very constructive are they? That said... it is a talk page, or looks like one and anyone can say anything, subject to the usual restrictions, unless you've made it explicit that it's not a real talk page. Is there any way to incorporate the substance of his issue, that AWB is administered by a small group of folk who make decisions and that any given user may not be enabled, for whatever reasons that group of users sees fit? There's always the right to fork if folk do not agree since the SW is GFL and the doc GFDL, right?. In my view that happens to be precisely the way it ought to be run... perhaps his beef fundamentally is just that it isn't stated that way? The "outside policy" bit is a red herring as policy is what the people doing the work make it. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I think Winhunter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser%2FCheckPage&diff=81207916&oldid=81202350 summarised it well] "The accesss to the software is not governed by WP policy but by the rules/discretion of the software developer (naturally), however the edits made through AWB is governed by WP policy", but then I thought the instructions made this clear enough already. Of course I am always open to clarification. thanks again. Martin 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I commented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATobias_Conradi&diff=81217735&oldid=80958948 here]. It was removed, as you can see if you walk the diffs forward. I've left another comment. We shall see ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I saw, thanks, see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser%2FCheckPage&diff=81224739&oldid=81221029 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tobias_Conradi&diff=prev&oldid=81225299 this], in fact, much of his user page is devoted to "admin abuse". Oh dear. Martin 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::He is a very productive editor, with 40,000 edits to his credit, many of them very good. But he does not seem to take criticism very well, which is unfortunate as some of his contributions are ones we might not have gotten as soon (no one is irreplacable, but sometimes it takes time). ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious there's a lot of bad feeling about WP:SRNC, whether the outcome was justified or not. Would opening a Mediation Cabal solely for restoring good feeling around the highways pages be a good idea? If not, how do we fix this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think I and the other admins did what consensus asked us to do, and what ArbCom wanted, and I checked every step of the way... so I think an RfC might be better, or even another RfAr. dunno. That said I'm not sure how MUCH bad feeling there is.. how widespread is it? ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::Obviously the RFAs, continued animocity... the reason I'd like Med Cabal better is to increase the goodwill. I don't want anything to be decided, the only purpose of the Med Cabal would be to create goodwill, nothing more... if it fails it might go to RFC, but I don't want it to go there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Sure. But MedCabal wants something to resolve. Some question or contention. Worth a try. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Are there any other non-binding processes that can restore goodwill? Also check out WP:AE, SPUI is vandalizing pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Maybe that isn't vandalism but it should have been discussed and not have used SQUIDWARD! Oh well... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation as a judging admin at WP:SRNC! We appreciate your willingness to be involved in a contentious situation, and to deliver an unbiased verdict.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi I was just wondering on your Michagan bridge article. Ths bridge looks very familiar. Did they film part of Bridges of Madison County here. It looks like the bridge Clint Eastwood stood on.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hi, we moved to Ada in 1995, so if it was filmed there (the movie released in 1995 as well) it was probably just before our time. But I suspect not, there's no plaque to that effect... The design is fairly common I think. No way to say for sure though, good question. I'll ask at the township hall next time i'm there. Thanks for your interest! ++Lar: t/c 10:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to stick around but I had to get some work done... Church this morning and now it's essay time so I'll be done by dinner and actually be able to relax. :)

You can e-mail me any time (my "E-mail this user" is active) or leave a message on my talk page, or any combination. :)

Have a good day! :)

Srose (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)