Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4

Mr. McBride has a super-majority of 100 voters opposing him after only 24 hours. I realize this is probably non-salvageable but I hope he keeps it open and sets a new record.

Oh, is that really all it takes? I submitted a patch once myself but it was rejected because it contained IE-unfriendly CSS.

In all seriousness the toolserver folks were the only ones in a position to sanction him. As such he should not have resigned.

Posted by: ulsterman

We must be looking at different Wikipedias. I'm seeing "26/77/12" and in my book, 77 opposes is a lot less than 100. No doubt he'll run up 100 eventually, but WR:ISNOT a crystal ball.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Those opposing him form a super-majority of the ~100 voters in question, so kindly stop being a douche, Mikey.

Posted by: Moulton

What's wrong with a little hygiene?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Po' Skinnybones is getting deep fried by his peers.

But some folks like him:

Posted by: Ottava

He has my support.

Also, for the CU/OS elections, I recommend only MuZemike, Tiptoety, Bastique, and MBisanz.

Now, my minions, go make my five pics so.

Mwah ha ha ha ha ha.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha.

Ha.



I'm afraid McBride might pass my oppose total (but I should keep that record for neutrals if some of those weasels hop into a real decision).

Posted by: Anonymous editor

look at his answers to people who are asking about previous desysoppings:

someone should vote "Oppose I'm not sure I understand this RfA. Can you be a bit more specific?" or "Oppose Experience and understanding come with time. Give it about ten years."

Posted by: bluejayfan

Still hasn't withdrawn RfA even though his odds are impossible and he just looks like a fool by now. This is so typical of him - stubborn, arrogant and clueless.

Posted by: bluejayfan

A bureaucrat closed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=380931712#User:MZMcBride_re-opening_his_closed_RfA, so MZM http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&action=historysubmit&diff=380859848&oldid=380859310, leading to a predictable http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=380926921#Early_closure_of_RfAs.

Posted by: Ottava

Nihonjoe should have his Cratship removed for such a stunt.

Crats are supposed to be completely removed from such politics and also are limited to specific guidelines. He violated every single aspect of the policy (except for the whole Bot and Renaming part) in just this instance, and has a year long track record of screwing up (perhaps to cause drama and lulz, because he seems rather desperate for attention lately).

Where are all the Arbs about removing him? Why haven't you people gotten off your lazy butts and done it already. Instead, you bother with petty stuff and ban good users and let that troll walk around? Pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4 and people failed. You'd think when the community says "hell no" three times that chances are the guy has too many problems to be truly objective.



By the way, lets see if any current admin has the guts to do what is right and block Nihonjoe for abuse of process, WP:POINT, and just being a complete incivil douche.

Posted by: Theanima

For closing an RFA? That's what bureaucrats do, Ottava.


Diffs? Evidence? Anything at all?


Urm...


That would be actual abuse. Good thing you didn't become an admin, you'd have been worse than MZMcBride!


Just like you apparently.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ottava has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive22#Tyciol in mind.

Posted by: Theanima

Ahh. I think it was pretty stupid of Postlethwaite to publicly label Tyciol, whether it was true or not, and should have left it to Arbcom. Nevertheless Nihonjoe shouldn't have made such a fuss about it.

Posted by: MZMcBride

Interesting that you left out the 350-word answer to the follow-up. What does that say about you?

You say that as though it would be funnier or more pithy than the current set of opposes. Account creation is free; go wild.

Well, better to look like a fool than be one. Or something.

Welcome to the Review, bluejayfan.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Baloney. That was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4&oldid=380843260 Zero attempt to explain at all. It took an awfully long time for you to respond at all. The tally stood at (38/93/13) when you finally did.

What does that say about you?

Consider this my oppose based on not even bothering to go into the whole thing, which is what people care about when someone is trying to get back the tools.

The smart move would have been to cut it off at the pass by making a statement at the beginning. But no, you couldn't be bothered. Then several people ask about various things related to the desysoppings, and instead of giving an explanation you knew people wanted, you chose to stall with "be more specific", when the questions were perfectly plain.

Then when pressed, you finally gave some kind of acknowledgment of the issues. Terrific. If you want plaudits for that, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.

Posted by: Somey

That he has a low tolerance for bullshit? That's just a guess...

Two of the person(s) asking the question(s) about his "previous admin incarnations" (wtf kind of word-choice is that?) characterized the incident that led to his last "desysopping" as "helping a banned user vandalize unwatched BLPs." That, right there, shows just how utterly clueless, sheep-like, and insular the WP Faithful really are, at least as far as BLP issues are concerned.

Having said that, I can sort of see why they wouldn't want him to be an admin again, based strictly on his ability to "play nice," which has clearly decreased over time. (No offense, MZM - it's actually supposed to be a kind of back-handed compliment, in fact. Btw, does anybody remember if he played nice early on? I don't have time to research that question at the moment.)

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Malleus, for one, would consider that a compliment.

I don't think it's necessarily a positive or a negative trait. It's just something that's necessary at times.

Since his primary objective here is not actually to pass the RfA, I guess playing nice isn't necessary at all.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Twat maintenence may be necessary, but is best not done in public. I think this should be a WP sixth pillar.

And as for the above discussion, WP:SNO should be better known.

Posted by: The Joy

Why does a developer like MZM need administrator tools, anyhow? What does he need them for? To my knowledge, he was never a big blocker or XFD closer or the like.

Posted by: Theanima

He deleted a lot.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

MZM loves his deletions.

Posted by: The Joy

Were they good deletions?

Posted by: Anonymous editor

dunno, do you want to look through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesR/AdminStats most of which were automated?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yep, that's him. The dorks don't like him because he's a deletionist. Ooohhh. Bad boy.

Posted by: The Joy

Were there any prominent deletions that raised the ire of many Wikipedians?

Otherwise, I see no reason for him not to be an administrator.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Sounds like a good start.

Posted by: Somey

Heck, he shouldn't just be an administrator, he should be their Chief Technology Officer...

Posted by: Anonymous editor

don't know, but it wasn't the deletions that people primarily took issue with.

Because he deleted a lot of stuff and most of it was insignificant cleanup, that means there's no reason for him not to be an admin? For me, I can set aside all the stuff he did, but not the way he's behaved during this RfA. Anyone with that history who seriously wanted to become an admin again, would not have to have the history dragged out of him, bit by bit, and would show at least some contrition, rather than taking a completely confrontational approach.

Rightly or wrongly, that won't work and he ought know better.

Posted by: The Joy

The only major charges I can recall about MZM was his use of unauthorized bots (which he now gets permission to use), his giving sockpuppeting tips on this forum (which, IIRC, wasn't already known to most people anyhow and sophisticated puppeteers were already aware of. ), and his offer to help Greg find unwatched BLP articles (which resulted in an overreaction and proved regardless of Greg's involvement that Wikipedia cannot watch and maintain the large number of BLP articles anyway).

It shouldn't matter what the "Community" (i.e. a small dozen of socially elite editors and their kiddie sycophantic followers with colorful signatures and weak self-esteem with no ability to judge for themselves whether a person is capable to build and maintain a genuine encyclopedia.) wants, but whether MZM's skills can build an encyclopedia (which is what you guys want to build, right?). Yes, social and diplomatic skills are a plus, yet no one can overlook his technical expertise and MediaWiki experience. If Wikipedians were wise, they would take advantage of MZM's technical skills and have him help them create better bots, make sockpuppeting harder, and solve the BLP problem. Think of the opportunity wasted by holding on to past transgressions and keeping MZM from the tools!

What positives could MZM bring to Wikipedia with his administrator tools and would they outweigh the negatives, past and present? Think about it carefully and considerately.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Trust comes first and foremost. People are not willing to vote for someone who they can't trust. RfA voters want to feel that he won't repeat the things he did in the past, and from what he's said, it sounds like he's not interested in changing anything. People can forgive, but not when the candidate violates trust again and again without even admitting to doing anything wrong.

Now I will of course not argue that all administrators are trustworthy; indeed, some have proven themselves not worthy of the trust placed in them, but that doesn't change anything about this specific instance.

In response to your question, I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives from Wikipedia's perspective.

Posted by: Malleus

I agree.

Posted by: The Joy

I'm being more of a devil's advocate than anything. There used to be a time that developers were given administrator tools without an RFA. I believe that a developer once ran for RFA a few years and received opposes for wasting the Community's time when he/she could have just asked for the tools and not gone through RFA. Now if a 'crat gave MZM the tools to aid in his capacity as a developer, the drama would be explosive and many resignations along with an ArbCom case would follow.

Strange that MZM did not provide a reason for wanting the tools in the first place, except stating that he was a long time editor and developer. Had he provided some good reasons for having the tools, perhaps he would have had more supports.

I'm thinking this is more of a social experiment.



Oh, yes, definitely.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

No question. I think one of the opposes stated as much.



I agree, as I was saying earlier in the thread.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

As RfA train wrecks go, this is pretty impressive.

When is Ironholds going back for another grab at the tools?

Posted by: Ottava

I still have 3 more opposes, 2 more neutrals, and 13 more supports than what McBride does now, but I have a feeling that my record may be crushed.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

That's like Lyndon LaRouche and Bat Buchanan arguing over who ran a better presidential campaign.

Posted by: Ottava

I hope I'm Buchanan in that analogy (I assume you mean Pat?).

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Hmm, too bad Kurt seems to be retired. I'd like to hear his opinion on all this.

Posted by: Peripitus

I can't work out if MZM sought pain, attention, drama or all three, as this result was predictable. It's like a boo'd off comedian returning to the stage just to collect more rotten fruit.


Durova ?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Get Steve Crossin, Wisdom89 and Ten Pound Hammer to throw their hats into the RfA ring again, and we can have a John Henry-worthy train wreck!

I would like to see Malleus go for adminship -- I'd put money down that he would pass (narrowly, perhaps, but he'd make the grade).

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I'd take that bet.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Great! If you win, I'll give you NuclearWarfare to be your free housekeeper/cook/valet for the next month. If I win, I'll get NW as free housekeeper/cook/valet for the next month. Deal?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

It's more a measure of how much more important to them it is that "banned means banned" than it is to ensure that Wikipedia isn't used as a defamation engine. Only a subset of Wikipedians are in favor of using Wikipedia as a defamation engine; most of the rest simply don't care.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

It isn't that they don't care, it is just that they struggle to tell Wikipedia's virtual world from reality.

Thus unfairness towards [[User:Mynameisninja]], the danger of biting him, or inferring a lack of trust in some pseudonym with 50edits, is actually weighted against the risks of defaming or distressing someone out there. Since it is always easier to be sympathetic to "people you know", than people you don't, the balance again tends to favour the rights of [[User:Mynameisninja]] over the BLP subject. It isn't that the BLPs subject's interests don't count, it is just that there are being weighed against something that ought to be a feather against an elephant.

And the excuse if often what the implied reader "needs" or "is entitled to".

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Except McBride did nothing wrong.

I'll agree that "trust" is important when it comes to elections, but you neglect to mention just what the electorate is "trusting" the candidate to do.

In this case, it is clear that the electorate is not trusting McBride to not make absolute and total fools of them. Once again.

As per other comments here, as far as I can tell, McBride should indeed be installed as CTO. I'll go on and say that about 2/3rd of the admins should be released from duty (aka "fired"). You can begin with all the "oppose" voters here, and follow on with their friends and such.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Now that's a matter of opinion. Many would disagree with you.

Posted by: thekohser

Was what I did to those 4 or 5 BLPs really "vandalism"? If inserting incorrect information on a temporary basis as a testing measure is a crime, then http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_U.S._state&diff=prev&oldid=1885781 needs to be desysopped.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Messing with an infobox style is hardly the same as inserting falsehoods into a BLP.

Posted by: Abd

Very strange to see opposes based on his allegedly abusing the tools last time. What tools did he abuse? The problem was the provision of information he got from toolserver. Did he need admin access on WP to get that information? I thought not, but maybe I'm wrong.

Strange? Well, not really. Lots of WP discussion and voting is of this quality.

Posted by: Abd

Sounds terrible, doesn't it? But ... depends on the "falsehood." Also depends on whether or not it's a BLP, actually.

It was a test of how quickly false information would be found, it ran for a very short time, compared to how long false information frequently stands up. The overall effect was positive, in fact, or neutral, and if there was any real damage (highly unlikely that even one single person was "deceived,") it was nothing compared to the flood of crap coming in every day.

But we hear this mantra over and over. "Inserted falsehoods in BLPs." Actually, he didn't. And anyone who thinks he did is completely nuts and didn't pay attention to what actually happened.

The same testing could have been done but less efficiently and less accurately, without his participation. His participation guaranteed that any possible damage was highly transient. In other words, he improved the situation, he didn't make it worse.

But Wikipedia has long been overwhelmed by Must Follow The Rules types, even when there are no rules. (MZM did not break rules, apparently, but only "expectations." I.e., "He should have known better." Which is a catch-all for "I and my friends don't like it." But, of course, lots of people didn't like it, based on wildly inaccurate descriptions of what happened that circulated in the usual places, where nothing is ever examined closely, unless if someone does, in which case that person gets dinged for writing a tome. Nobody likes to read these complicated descriptions of actual reality. It's much easier to just scream "How horrible! Inserted false information into BLPs!"

Like, biography of woman who was active, was it around 1930?, then an addition of a link to her recently winning a beauty contest or something like that. Person with same name, of course.

This kind of crap gets inserted all the time, except it isn't so obvious. And that's what was being shown, the effect of a lack of any serious review process, with sensible fact-checking, and only dependence on RCP, which is lousy at this kind of thing. An RCPer would look at that diff and say, hey, sourced, harmless at worst, and give it a pass. And no responsibility. Nobody keeps track of what was looked at, and what wasn't. And what was actually checked and what was merely glanced at.

Posted by: thekohser

Here are some handy links for those who want 'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Hunt_%28footballer%29&diff=336550638&oldid=329832552
Viewed ~55 times per month
SELF-REVERTED
Error attributing event to another namesake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petter_Schjerven&diff=336552406&oldid=295079235
Viewed ~55 times per month
SELF-REVERTED
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eileen_MacDonagh&diff=336815532&oldid=305908510
Viewed ~45 times per month
Error attributing event to another namesake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andr%C3%A1s_Fej%C3%A9r&diff=336817866&oldid=316166026
Viewed ~75 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanakorn_Santanaprasit&diff=336820518&oldid=285923833
Viewed ~30 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_McDonnell_%28actor%29&diff=336822040&oldid=335394145
Viewed ~475 times per month
Error attributing event to another namesake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Katrin_Walter&diff=337184106&oldid=324284405
Viewed ~165 times per month
Error attributing event to another namesake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lydia_R._Diamond&diff=337595208&oldid=332826189
Viewed ~95 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Pene&diff=337597390&oldid=319082191
Viewed ~340 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

If you want to full story about how this BLP testing project got started, there's http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28080, too.

High crimes against the Wikipedia, indeed. Harumph, harumph!

Posted by: Anonymous editor

someone addressed this on the rfa.

on en wiki, they can't do anything about what global rights he has on the toolserver. they can simply vote on whether he should have added rights on en wiki. they don't trust him.

I'm sure most of them would vote to remove his toolserver access, but that isn't their call.

really, what tools he used isn't that relevant because, again, it comes down to whether people trust him to use the tools the right way.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Once again, this must be translated into normal English: "if comes down to whether people trust that he will not make them look like the flamin' fools they actually are".

In other words, they are protecting their own asses, not BLP subjects, not the project's, or for any other reason. Trying to save their own useless, nitwit, faces from the cream-pie of embarrassment they so richly deserve.

Not too competently either, as one can consider the premature vote closure as yet another attempt at damage control.

Honestly, most admins needs to be taken out wiki-back and and wiki-shot: strip them of their Precious Bit. They are the project's worst enemy.

Posted by: Ottava

Ahahahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

Hahaha.

Ha.

Sigh.

<3

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Does onanism count?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Dororthy Parker had a parakeet she called Onan, since he spilled his seed on the ground so much.

Personally I think that all WP administrators are tools, and Jimbo abuses all of them.

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

Posted by: MZMcBride

It's been suggested that people would have been less upset had I vandalized the biographies myself. I find it all a bit mind-boggling.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Thank you. Took the words right outta my mouth.

"Trust". What a goddamned joke. McBride is supposed to "gain the trust" of the "Community"?
A community that can, at random times of the day, include blithering AN/I-trolling nitwits like
Cyclopia (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Baseball_Bugs (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
SarekOfVulcan (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and Sandstein (T-C-L-K-R-D) ??

I would not pay any of these freaks to wipe my anus properly.
I would not "trust" them anywhere near my lower regions.
No "real encyclopedia project" would allow these idiots into the building,
much less give them positions of high trustworthiness and considerable
abusable power. Only the Wikipedia Freak-Show can do that.

And yet, to become an admin, it is most critical to "gain their trust"??
Ha. Ha. Ha.

Posted by: Moulton

Where was I just reading about http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30594?

Posted by: thekohser

There we go again with that "vandalism" word. So a few mistaken namesake attributions and a bunch of Cirt-style additions of factual information to BLPs is "vandalism" these days?

Posted by: MZMcBride

Apologies. I probably should have used "edited" there.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

I don't, actually.




There are very few people I would trust near my lower regions.

Posted by: Moulton

Dese goys need to loin a ting or two.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Why? Vandalism is a minor offense in the Wikiworld, and in fact many, if not most, of Wikipedia's current admins have a history of vandalism themselves. No, no, your offense has nothing to do with vandalism; your crime is being seen to consort with banned users. That's treason against the High Jimbo, for which punishment must be swift, severe, and certain.

Don't ever forget that Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia; it's a social networking service (and an MMORPG) disguised as an encyclopedia. When viewed in that context, it's little surprise that crimes against the social order carry much greater weight than crimes against the (relatively unimportant) encyclopedia.

Posted by: Moulton

One of the curious things about the "vandalism" label is that it's routinely applied to any and all edits by an editor whom Jimbo has declared persona non grata, no matter how constructive or beneficial such edits might be.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

not under their current account. It's rare for someone with a history of vandalism to pass an RfA. Of course, if they did it using IPs or other accounts, it'd be hard to know.

Posted by: Ottava

Am I the only one wondering why McBride cares about RfA when he probably has at least two other admin accounts right now?

Posted by: carbuncle

I am guessing that the answer to your question is probably yes.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Really? What are his other admin accounts?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald?

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Ottava knows about as much about it as you do. He just invented some idea that a lot of admins have other admin accounts. Don't ask him to name the accounts, because he can't.

Posted by: thekohser

Cool4 and Cool5?

Posted by: BelovedFox

You make it sound like "the electorate" is a homogenous mixture of people invested in "The Power Structure".

The ArbCom gets put through the ringer by internal groups regularly, outside press every so often--and it doesn't matter one ounce to many (I hesitate to say most) users.

The Wiki is simply too large to be involved in or address every issue. The overlap between the RfA crowds and BLP editors, for example, is likely very small (excepting certain RfAs like this one that brings lots of other people to the flame.)

More to the point: I don't trust McBride, necessarily, beyond the fact that having met him he doesn't seem like a bad guy. But whoever McBride made "absolute and total fools of", I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. (Either way I haven't voted in the RfA.)

Posted by: Ottava

Drinking with him is fine. However, once he is online he is a total douche. I have to say, so am I.


Weeeeeeeeee!

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Try not to spill your drink on the keyboard.

Oh, wait... nevermind.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

I can't imagine MZM falling-down drunk. What's he like when he's plastered?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I dunno, stiff?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Final (56/124/21); ended 07:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC) – closed as f**king disastrous.

Posted by: SarekOfVulcan

Fair enough: you could not pay me enough to be anywhere near your lower regions, so that works out. :-)

Posted by: EricBarbour

You certainly spend a remarkable amount of time fighting with Ottava and Domer48,
stabbing TungstenCarbide in the back, giving up your admin bit and subsequently
begging for its return, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive340#User:SarekOfVulcan like a possessed madman over Ireland-related articles,
generating other http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Hounding.2FGaming_by_admin_SarekOfVulcan AN/I dramah, and kissing the miserable ass of Sandstein.


Not to mention your tendency to use your OpenDNS membership to http://www.opendns.com/community/user/124120 DNS tags that might
embarrass the Sainted Wiki-Pee-Dia, Which Contains Much Porn But Is Not Pornographic, Oh Noooo.

And besides, I'm still a bit curious as to why you were banned "for life" from the http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~VisualFoxProWiki.

Most people might look at all that, and say, "Hm. He's a remarkably vindictive little nerd."

So I was a bit worried that, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29170&st=0&p=229599&#entry229599, you might try for my tender bits.

(besides, you're obviously a Freemasonry fanboi, and I think Freemasonry is a joke.)

Posted by: SarekOfVulcan

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan (T-H-L-K-D)


See also http://leafe.com/archives/full_thread/367304.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

You figured that out, too?