Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Backslash Forwardslash

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% Wikipedia	553	5.68% Wikipedia 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

Wikipedia

* 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

Wikipedia 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 Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash
General discussion moved from Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash —  Aitias  // discussion 21:19, 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)
 * 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...  So Why  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)


 * 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 Tropical Cyclone  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 Tropical Cyclone  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 Tropical Cyclone  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)


 * 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 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 Wikipedia, 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)


 * Oh, English is unintelligible for most people here? Face-surprise.svg —  Aitias  // discussion 20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Greek is. "“Οὐδὲ ἀδικούμενον ἄρα ἀνταδικεῖν, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ οἴονται, ἐπειδή γε οὐδαμῶς δεῖ ἀδικεῖν.”" isn't English. Please translate it, and discuss in English, not Greek.  Majorly  talk  20:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Greek? That's not Greek. —  Aitias  // discussion 20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever language it is, you addressed a comment to me in a language I don't understand, on the English Wikipedia. Please translate it, and the other comment, into English, and discuss things in English from now on.  Majorly  talk  20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason why the comment in question is in Ancient Greek and not in English is perfectly obvious, Majorly. It's a philosophical principle and —as is generally known— the entire occidental philosophy has it's origin in the Ancient Greek philosophy. As translations are always worse than their original, I simply thought I may quote it in Ancient Greek. Well, a quick translation (analogous, not literally): “Οὐδὲ ἀδικούμενον ἄρα ἀνταδικεῖν, ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ οἴονται, ἐπειδή γε οὐδαμῶς δεῖ ἀδικεῖν.” (Plato, Crito, 10) = [You are not allowed to] do [somebody] an injustice even if one did [you] an injustice, as you are not under any circumstances allowed to act injustly. ναὶ δή = agreed. Hope that helps. :) —  Aitias  // discussion 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly obvious that people speak English on English Wikipedia. You can't just assume everyone can speak Ancient Greek. Did you really think your point (which I disagree with totally) would get across to me in what, to me, is totally unintelligible?  Majorly  talk  21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I explained below already, I truly thought you would deem it worth reading Crito. —  Aitias  // discussion 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just leave comments in English next time, or provide a translation, so I don't have to waste time trying to interpret your comments.  Majorly  talk  21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Majorly, I mentioned it already, but once again: A translation is always worse than the original. Also, the article (Crito) is excellently clear. And finally, immediately after you had asked me to provide a translation, I have provided one. —  Aitias  // discussion 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So you tell me in the original language, that I don't understand at all. Brilliant plan there, great way of getting the point across.
 * No, I had to ask you twice to translate it, first at 20:28 then at 20:33, after you responded without translating it. You then translated it at 20:56. That isn't immediate. Just provide the translation immediately next time, so I don't have to ask.  Majorly  talk  21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

← I thought the hint to Crito 10 was also clear enough. "Then one must not retaliate nor do evil to any person, no matter what one may suffer from them." --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, leaving crypic clues is really clear. I had a look at the article, but saw no number 10. If he'd just said it in English there'd be no issue here. Aitias needs to find some time to observe talk page etiquette.  Majorly  talk  21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind explaining how my course of action was not in accordance with our talk page etiquette? Thanks. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 21:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote in a language other than English. When I asked you to translate, you said I was talking about the wrong language - a point that makes it even more clear you should have written in English in the first place. When I asked you to translate again, it took you a further 20+ mins to respond, and you did so begrudgingly, saying I should have to do the research into a comment made, by reading the article (which I did do, but saw no mention of point 10).  Majorly  talk  21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, sorry, but what do you mean by begrudgingly? — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 21:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * &larr; This is the discussion page for Backslash's RfA; let's try to keep it on-topic please, and avoid personal attacks (and keep it in English!) Thanks, –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone
 * What Majorly said, Aitias, if you need a policy to point to it's If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, it is your responsibility to either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator. –  iride scent  20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @Iridescent: Um, If the use of another language is unavoidable: It was unavoidable as I have explained explicitly above. If you are requested to do so: Immediately after I had been requested to do so, I have provided one. So, what's wrong? — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was avoidable, just tell me the point in English next time, as you did above. Did you really think trying to tell me something in a language I didn't know would actually get the point across?  Majorly  talk  21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From a practical perspective it doesn't seem to matter which language anyone uses in speaking with you, so I don't really see the problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about now? Yet more attacks from you, by the looks of it. Not surprising though. Continue to make your digs at me. You are, of course, the sole exemption to our civility policy.  Majorly  talk  21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just another poor fool are you then, who can't distinguish between "personal attacks" and personal comments? God rue the day you ever get the bit back. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @Majorly: To be honest I thought you would deem it worth reading Crito... If you didn't, I'm sorry then. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It may of course be human nature to argue with each other, but randomly speaking to someone in a different language they don't understand, for no reason at all is plain rude. I expected better of Aitias, but of course I was wrong.  Majorly  talk  20:47, 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. –  iride scent  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)
 * Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)