Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Majorly (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 14 February 2009 (→General discussion moved from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash#Oppose: ]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

General user info
Username: Backslash Forwardslash
User groups: accountcreator, rollbacker
First edit: Aug 06, 2008 08:56:29
Unique articles edited: 5,342
Average edits per page: 1.82
Total edits (including deleted): 9,742
Deleted edits: 451
Live edits: 9,291
Namespace totals
Article	3490	35.82%
Talk	310	3.18%
User	272	2.79%
User talk	3198	32.83%
Misplaced Pages	553	5.68%
Misplaced Pages talk	90	0.92%
File	24	0.25%
File talk	1	0.01%
MediaWiki talk	1	0.01%
Template	631	6.48%
Template talk	716	7.35%
Help	1	0.01%
Help talk	1	0.01%
Category	1	0.01%
Portal	2	0.02%
Month counts
2008/08	262	
2008/09	15	
2008/10	1007	
2008/11	4420	
2008/12	2357	
2009/01	836	
2009/02	394	
Logs
Accounts created: 145
Pages moved: 25
Pages patrolled: 144
Files uploaded: 12
Top edited articles
Article
    * 94 - Australia_Day
    * 91 - Bruce_Kingsbury
    * 40 - Melbourne_Airport
    * 37 - Cyrille_Pierre_Théodore_Laplace
    * 31 - Tess_Gerritsen
    * 16 - Frederick_Birks
    * 14 - Kumusi_River
    * 13 - Misc
    * 12 - List_of_Brownlow_Medal_winners
    * 10 - Brisbane_Airport
Talk
    * 21 - Melbourne_Airport
    * 12 - Wasilla_Assembly_of_God/GA1
    * 12 - Australia_Day
    * 10 - Kauhajoki_school_shooting/GA1
    * 9 - Bruce_Kingsbury
    * 8 - Roxy_Ann_Peak/GA1
    * 6 - The_Mansion_of_Happiness
    * 6 - Sigma_Rho
    * 6 - Three_Little_Birds_(Connie_Talbot_song)/GA1
    * 5 - Uru:_Ages_Beyond_Myst/GA1
User
    * 43 - Backslash_Forwardslash
    * 26 - Backslash_Forwardslash/GAReviews
    * 22 - Backslash_Forwardslash/mainbody
    * 19 - Backslash_Forwardslash/Vanity_Board
    * 18 - Backslash_Forwardslash/awardtemplate
    * 16 - Backslash_Forwardslash/monobook.js
    * 12 - Backslash_Forwardslash/Karamu
    * 10 - Backslash_Forwardslash/Reviewing
    * 5 - Matthew_Yeager
    * 5 - Backslash_Forwardslash/Adoption
User talk
    * 109 - Backslash_Forwardslash
    * 26 - Mvjs
    * 18 - Rjanag
    * 16 - SunDragon34/Adoption
    * 13 - Abraham,_B.S.
    * 11 - Yellow_Evan
    * 8 - Sunderland06
    * 7 - Rocky1023
    * 6 - Backslash_Forwardslash/Archive_2
    * 6 - EugeSer_14
Misplaced Pages
    * 122 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 60 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
    * 52 - Good_article_nominations
    * 25 - Huggle/Whitelist
    * 17 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 13 - Featured_article_candidates/Bruce_Kingsbury
    * 13 - Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action
    * 12 - Administrators'_noticeboard
    * 11 - Recent_additions
    * 11 - Miscellany_for_deletion
Misplaced Pages talk
    * 76 - Did_you_know
    * 3 - Articles_for_creation/Submissions/SKV
    * 2 - Copyright_problems
    * 2 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
    * 2 - Good_article_nominations
    * 1 - Vandalism
    * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Submissions/The_Hobart_Charg...
    * 1 - Tutorial_(Talk_pages)
    * 1 - Twinkle
    * 1 - Flagged_revisions/Trial
File
    * 4 - BruceSKingsbury.jpg
    * 2 - 6battalion03-07-17.jpg
    * 2 - KumusiRiverWairopi.jpg
    * 2 - Cooneycropped.jpg
    * 2 - Brucekingsburygrave.jpg
    * 2 - Maidenhead_bridgecropforDYK.jpg
    * 1 - Sydney1.jpg
    * 1 - Flag_of_Sri_Lanka.svg
    * 1 - Crown-macau-290407.jpg
    * 1 - AlfaHosts.png
File talk
    * 1 - Wiki_letter_w.svg
MediaWiki talk
    * 1 - Bad_image_list
Template
    * 580 - Did_you_know/Next_update
    * 26 - Did_you_know/Next_next_update
    * 4 - User_WikiProject_Papua_New_Guinea
    * 3 - DYKsuggestion/doc
    * 3 - DYKsuggestion
    * 3 - UpdatedDYK
    * 3 - Did_you_know/Next_update/Clear
    * 2 - DYKNom
    * 2 - Continent-based_templates
    * 2 - UpdatedDYKNom
Template talk
    * 714 - Did_you_know
    * 2 - DYKsuggestion
Help
    * 1 - Contents/Editing_Wikipedia
Help talk
    * 1 - Edit_conflict
Category
    * 1 - Wikipedia_content_guidelines
Portal
    * 2 - War

General discussion moved from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash#Oppose

General discussion moved from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash#Oppose 
— Aitias // discussion 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Another stellar rationale there.  GARDEN  20:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Does my opposition really need a rationale? Should I challenge all of the supporters for their rationales or are you planning to do that? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Rationales are helpful in keeping this a discussion rather than a "call the question"-type vote. Even though some people don't like it, "per nom" or "per previous commenter" is better than nothing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Support on its own supports the nomination. Oppose on its own needs at least some contest. Stop being pointy.  GARDEN  20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. Well mirroring the first support my rationale is WHY, rather than WHYNOT. We're not short of administrators. I don't support the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   There are two perfectly good nominations telling you WHY. Perhaps read them before giving a rationale-less oppose.  GARDEN  21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps you ought to listen to what I'm telling you, instead of trying to badger me into submission. Good luck with that btw, you're going to need it. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   I don't care if you remove your !vote. I just wanted to let you know that you're wrong. Now you know. If you're not willing to accept that, then, feel free to extend this drama.  GARDEN  21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Please, there is no reason we must have this discussion here. Such discussions over whether one is allowed to support or oppose without comment clutter all-too-many RfAs. If you have to, discuss it at WT:RFA please, not here... SoWhy 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   I just saw this, SoWhy ... if we can bring it back around to this RFA, I wouldn't mind if we keep going, otherwise I agree and I'll stop. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

← This heckling of opposers is very childish and quite unbecoming. About time it was stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We just finished talking about Keepscases' questions, and there was general agreement with the approach of assuming good faith and not micromanaging, given that it's pretty far-fetched to say that he was just trolling (although we didn't get agreement on exactly what to do). Seems to me that the same thing applies here; Malleus is a regular and valued contributor to RFA, so it's probably not going to work to micro-manage what he can say and how he can say it. Opposition rationales often include references to lack of AGF; if we're requiring candidates to AGF, why not require that from voters, too? As long as Malleus isn't trolling (and he isn't), doesn't AGF and CIVILITY require us to start off assuming Malleus has a good reason for what he thinks and how much he decides to share? In fact, this is one of Malleus's main point at RFA I believe ... the idea that there are some admins who think that AGF applies to everyone except admins, and everywhere except RFA (correct me if I'm wrong). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look. Malleus, in regards to your comment on the actual RfA page, he has an FA. That's enough article work. Also, @ Dan, can't he just AGF and !vote support? If he can't be arsed with the policy, neither can I.  GARDEN  21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus and I have taken a few swings at each other on occasion ... that may have just been where I was, I don't know. So ... yeah, I get frustrated with opposition too, including Malleus, sometimes, but policy is policy ... and if we're not AGF'ing at RFA, where we reguarly toss people out the door for not AGF'ing ... I don't like loaded words, so I'll just say we should be more careful. Regarding policy: are you really saying that CIVILITY applies to choosing admins, Garden? Does it also apply to choosing bureaucrats, stewards, and founders? Does CIVILITY require us to grant privileges to anyone whenever we can't prove that we shouldn't? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Dank55, no you're not wrong. In fact you're quite right.

In reply to Garden, am I supposed to be impressed? My objection is to where the candidate is spending his time. For me it's a danger signal if less than 50% of an editor's work is not in article space, and ideally I like to see something around 60%. Granted, once becoming an administrator that percentage will almost inevitably reduce, but not before. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Roughly 35% of my edit count is in the mainspace, yet I've written nearly 60 GAs and 30 pieces of featured content. This may be a bit irrelevant, but the point is that edit count != quality of contributions. –Juliancolton 22:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. According to soxred, 40% of your edits are in mainspace with 8.5% in article talk. That gives almost 50% toward content (presumably, this was much higher when you became an admin - it was 52.5% and 10% respectively). Backslashforwardslash has 36% and 3% (39%). (This is not a comment on anyones suitability for adminship, just a comment!) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I wouldn't vote for you. Nothing personal. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I wouldn't even vote for myself! –Juliancolton 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was on the verge of opposing my own last RfA, I was persuaded it was a bad idea. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. But - and here's the bit that grates me - why didn't you just say that, rather then the uncivil "No." on the page? @ Dan, no, CIVILITY doesn't. But that doesn't mean CIVILITY somehow vanishes for one week on one page (or in this case, two.) By the way, I point out User:Gary King as well - a non-admin. 46.51% mainspace, 188 article credits.  GARDEN  22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

By whose whacky definition is just saying "No" uncivil. Yours? Has it now become "uncivil" to disagree with you? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not just give your reason in the first place? Then none of this so-called badgering would never have happened and we'd all be doing something else right now. Majorly talk 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You ask why not, and I ask why. Beseides, you obviously enjoy badgering, else you wouldn't do so much of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, wrong again. People only question crappy opposes because they're crappy. If people gave good opposes (Iridescent's is a good example of one on this RFA) they wouldn't have to be "badgered". If you don't like being "badgered", give a proper reason for your vote so people wouldn't need to. Majorly talk 16:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to put it into context. If you walked into an interview for a job, say. And the person employing people turned round, scanned you up and down and said, "No." How would you feel? Opposes should contain constructive criticism. No candidate can improve from a "No." They'll only learn to stay the hell away from you.  GARDEN  23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For certain jobs that's exactly what happens. "Next please". Badgering over now? You can surely see that it's pointless, as I haven't changed my mind. My vote remains "No", whether you like it or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed you said no. I'm annoyed that, while you have a rationale, you decided to hide it until a talkpage discussion had to be made.  GARDEN  15:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you what pisses me off about this. Instead of politely asking for my rationale you and your bully-boy friends decide to hurl abuse and ridicule in my direction, even having the cheek to accuse me of being uncivil. You people make me sick with your sanctimonious claptrap. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, enough now. I'm sure the closing 'crat will know how much weight to assign each vote. –Juliancolton 15:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies then. This will be my last post on the topic.  GARDEN  15:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last post on the topic is eight posts too late so far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'd just bothered to give the reason in the first place, none of this would have happened. Entirely your own fault, so stop whining about it. Majorly talk

Everything is always someone else's fault, isn't it Majorly. I am under no more obligation to give my reasons for opposing than a supporter is obliged to give their reasons for supporting. Curious then that it's my fault when the badgers start attacking. Had anyone wanted to know what my reasons were they could have asked me politely and respectfully. Too much to expect from some though. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So everyone except for you is obliged to edit civilly? How like you to apply double standards. Don't give me bullshit that you'd have given your reasons if you'd been asked nicely. It's really too much to expect a reason for an oppose I guess, without people whining about being so-called "badgered" and "attacked". Again, sad really. It is of course laughable to see you whining about people being "polite" and "respectful", when you are neither. Majorly talk 19:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be unable to read or to understand what I have plainly said, as well as behaving in a manner unbecoming to someone with aspirations to becoming an administrator. Where did I say that I'd have given my reasons if asked civilly? What I said was "Had anyone wanted to know what my reasons were they could have asked me politely and respectfully." Not quite the same thing is it? Where did I say that I wouldn't give my reasons if asked civilly? Why does any of that excuse the fact that not only was I not asked civilly, you have now taken it upon yourself to put all of the blame on me for the poor behaviour exhibited oon this page because of what you believe you saw in your crystal ball, how I would have behaved had I been asked civilly. Your logic is no better than your manners. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear to me that you are deliberately missing the point - again, something that you do often in discussions. "Politely and respectfully" are part of being civil. This may of course be a new concept for you, since you don't believe the civility policy applies to yourself (but when you or your friends are spoken to in an uncivil way, woe betide whichever editor it is!) Why do you insist other editors speak nicely to you, when you treat everyone else with utter contempt and like dirt? I'm guessing how you'd have (not) acted based on my numerous interactions with you. If you think I'm wrong, that's your choice. And now you're complaining about manners? Speak for yourself. Majorly talk 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't worry, Malleus, one who violates basic communication standards saying “Don't give me bullshit that ” has not a snowball's chance in hell to become an administrator. :) — Aitias // discussion 19:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Please don't waste your time in trying to bullshit me. "Never bullshit a bullshitter". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)". Majorly talk 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly: “Οὐδὲ ἀδικούμενον ἄρα ἀνταδικεῖν, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ οἴονται, ἐπειδή γε οὐδαμῶς δεῖ ἀδικεῖν.” (Plato, Crito, 10) — Aitias // discussion 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing, but I don't speak Greek, and besides, your snide little dig at me is moot, as I have no wish to administrate this encyclopedia if people are just going to make veiled threats that they'd oppose an RFA of mine. I have better things to do with my time. Majorly talk 19:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you have no wish to administrate this encyclopedia, as you are clearly unsuitable for the job. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Says you. And besides, I said if, so feel free to watchlist Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Majorly 2 and oppose me with whatever reason you can come up with, if/when the time comes. Make it a good one, I wouldn't want you getting upset about people "badgering" you again. Majorly talk 20:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ναὶ δή. — Aitias // discussion 20:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is English Misplaced Pages, Aitias. We speak English here. Majorly talk 20:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

O rly? Unbelievable! — Aitias // discussion 20:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, mind explaining why you keep making comments in a language that to most people here is unintelligable? Majorly talk 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen a well-thought out, rational and relevant comment in RFA that relates to edit count or % in X namespace. That's because counting edits in namespaces is extremely silly, irrelevant to adminship, and simply another excuse to oppose somebody. Sad that people feel the need to do this, but that's the way it is. Not like the vote has any affect on the RFA at all. Majorly talk 22:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re to Malleus and agreeing with Majorly) Malleus, I'm sure I've said this before – that percentage can be very misleading (and I say this as one of the more prominent members of the "insufficient mainspace contributions" brigade). Someone stumbling across a vandal, malfunctioning bot etc can easily run up a huge number of non-mainspace edits in a matter on minutes reverting it (for example) while massive rewrites that take days or weeks of work , , only count as a single edit. In the absence of a "contribution significance" measuring tool, an RFA candidate's answer to Q2 is generally a much better guide. – iridescent 22:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It can, but only one FA isn't nearly enough to persuade me to support. I also take account of the percentage of user talk page postings compared to the number of article edits, as that demonstrates a collegial and collaborative nature. More important for a prospective administrator that hanging around some user name trough. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been going through the RFA Review suggestions, and what leaps out at me was that exopedians don't understand or respect metapedians and vice-versa, and inclusionists/darwikinists feel the same about individualists/deletionists and vice-versa (in general, although the really competent, high-volume inclusionists and deletionists have learned their roles and get along fine); the best you can hope for is that there are enough people who swing both ways to glue the whole thing together, and that the different factions will come to accept that the other factions aren't going away and they'll have to deal with that if they're going to hang around. Malleus has exopedian tendencies, in that he distrusts people who are overly attracted to wiki-process. The strongest argument of the exopedians is impossible to refute: you hear one story after another of productive wikipedians who got less involved with content, more involved with process, got burned out, and left. But regardless of the ways the exopedians are right or wrong, it doesn't matter, because they're not going anywhere, and their votes count the same as anyone else's. (I've been swinging metapedian myself recently, and I hope I start swinging back the other way soon.) \/ has a lot of activity at AN/ANI, AfD, and other talk-heavy processes, and exopedians don't like that. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable analysis Dank55. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)