Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Backslash Forwardslash 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Backslash Forwardslash

[edit]

Final: 108/10/6 at 12:52 June 4th 2009

Nomination

[edit]

Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) – Ok, where to start... I'm nominating myself for adminship for a few different reasons. Firstly, I feel I can be a lot more useful to the community than I am currently. I try to edit following the principal that if I add to a backlog, I should help to reduce it - it's the reason I have worked at DYK and have been reviewing at GAN. Increasingly however, I am noticing myself add a lot more to the backlog at NPP, and I might as well stop adding to the backlog and start helping to clear it.

My first RfA was in February of this year, with errant UAA reports and a general lack of experience being listed as common rationale for opposing. Since that RfA, I changed my perspective on the way I worked on Wikipedia, trying more to fix mistakes than to point out the mistakes I didn't make. In the last three and a half months, I have made around 10 UAA reports, none of which were rejected. None-the-less, my activity in 'administrative areas' has been focused on New Page Patrol and CSD tagging. My contributions to AfD discussions has been limited, but I have chipped a few times.

At my last RfA, I was able to present one FA and one GA. Unfortunately, I still have only those articles to give as 'reviewed content'. My article writing has been focused on articles that haven't received a ranking as of yet - articles like Frederick Birks and My Delirium are works in progress. I have made a few small, stub articles over the last few months also, and received two DYK credits in March.

In short, I feel that I have learnt from the mistakes pointed out in my first RfA, and I feel that I would be able to serve the community responsibly. ∗ \ / {talk} 11:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to work mainly at clearing the WP:CSD backlog of nominated articles, given that is the area I feel I have the most experience in. I will also try and lend a hand at WP:AIV whenever I can, possibly helping WP:RFPP once I gain a little more admin experience. I won't be working at WP:UAA - I don't have right amount of confidence in my abilities in that area, and I would prefer not to be making errors on a noticeboard I do not fully understand.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of article quality, Bruce Kingsbury is my only WP:FA, but I have also got an article to GA status and received five DYK credits. We are, after all, an encyclopaedia and I feel quite lazy if I haven't done enough article work. In other edits, I'm generally satisfied with the way I have been helping out at NPP; I do my best to be 100% accurate and I have removed or altered tags I have had reservations with. Although I have been a bit absent as of late, I have previously been involved with WP:DYK. My attention has not been focused on that area, but my interest in it will return.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Since my last RfA, I haven't had a major conflict. The only thing I can think of was having an article I created, Radiopilot tagged and deleted with what I felt was an inappropriate CSD tag. The article at creation had been short, and I was in the midst of expansion when I repeatedly received edit conflicts with User:RadioFan, who was adding maintenance tags to the article. This got a little frustrating when I felt like my comments to him were being ignored, but as soon as we contacted each other we came to an understanding. Given I plan to work at CSD, that incident helped me understand a lot of how new editors could be scared off, if they come across an editor more 'forceful' with the CSD tags.
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
4. Please show an edit you have made to a policy or guideline. If you have made no edits to policy or guidelines, please state an edit you would like to make. If you feel Wikipedia policies and guidelines are already perfect, please say so.
A:I don't recall ever making a change to an existing policy or guideline, but I wouldn't say that Wikipedia is perfect. I don't have a specific edit for you, but I would like to see the notability policies somewhat condensed and 'refined'. Currently the notability practices are scattered everywhere and people are using old AfD results as a precedent. I know the BLP situation is less than ideal, but I'm not totally convinced of what the appropriate measure is. There are a few other minor fixes here and there but overall I haven't got that many issues with the establishment. :)
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
5. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Rights? Quite honestly, I believe the only 'right' editors have here is the right to privacy and the right to vanish. As noble as free speech and other ideals are, I don't feel that they are directly translated online. I think Wikipedia should be allowing editors to say their mind and express opinions (to an extent!), but I feel using the word 'right', is a bit of a misnomer.
A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
6. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?
A User:Backslash Forwardslash, User: Forwardslash Backslash and User: Slashsock. If any others claim to be me, they are wrong.
Questions from Rootology
7a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?
A: I seem to remember I had an account in '05/'06. I'll search around to find it - it was a whie ago and I only had a handful of edits.
I have found the account name, but I don't feel comfortable in releasing as it does have a few edits with information related to my real world identity. I'm more than happy to release the name to the Arbitration Committee if anyone has any concerns, but the account had under 50 edits on minor articles/redirects.
7b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?
A: See 7a.
7c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?
A: Yes, see Q7a.
8. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?
A: The current BLP situation is, in my opinion, quite poor. Our BLP articles are too poorly protected, and too often are real people affected. The solution, however, is something for greater minds than I. I'm leaning towards semi-protection of all BLPs, but as I said in Q4, I'm not totally convinced of what the solution is.
9. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
A: Not really. My political views are pretty mainstream, and I'm not passionate enough about controversial topics to cloud my judgement. I would be happy to recuse if a user did not feel I was completely impartial, of course, but I generally know my biases.
10. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall?
A: Recall is a broken process; those who should step down are usually the type not to stand for recall, and those who are willing to step down, shouldn't. I'd be happy to step down if someone I respect came up with a reason, certainly, but I'm not planning to draft a detailed recall process for myself.
11. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?
A: Of course, adminship shouldn't be a super-group of users above the law. The only problem I see is that as far as I know*, admins are able to unblock themselves, essentially rendering the blocks useless.
* I've never needed to find out, nor have I seen otherwise.
12. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?
A: Chicolate cake. :)
Question from User:Gimmetrow
13. Under what circumstances do you see yourself imposing or changing a user block without prior discussion?
A: If the user is a known serial vandal, blocking without discussion is certainly acceptable, if not necessary to prevent further disruption. Potentially compromised accounts could be another instance, but generally discussion would be preferred in those situations. Apart from that, I cannot think of another circumstance that I'd need to block without discussion.
Followup. This question is partly to probe if or when you would block a long-term user for a reason you know to be controversial without going to ANI or some other appropriate forum for general discussion first. For instance, blocks based on WP:CIVIL, especially those longer than a few hours, tend to be somewhat controversial. Comment? Gimmetrow 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't be making civility blocks on experienced editors. Too controversial, too much likelihood of drama, conflict. If I strongly felt that an established editor needed a block, I would head to ANI and let another admin perform it.
Question from Stifle
14. Under what circumstances can a non-free image of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?
A. 99.9% of the time, the image is replaceable and fails the NFCC standards. There are one or two minor examples, mainly old images of people with high historic or educational value, but most NFCC pictures of living people (TV stills for an actors article etc) are not valid.
Question from Jamie☆S93
15. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A. I touched on this earlier in Q10, and probably didn't elaborate as well as I should have. Basically, if one or two editor(s) that I respect the judgment (doesn't need to be an admin) approaches me in a civil manner, with a reasonable request that I review my suitability for adminship, I would request to be desysopped and run again. There isn't a complete list of editors I can hand over, but you get the idea. If a horde of people started calling for my head, I would be heading for advice from an experienced editor anyway, so I don't think this is an unreasonable method.
Additional optional questions from Lankiveil
16. Do you drink? Have you, or would you, ever edit Wikipedia while drinking or intoxicated?
A: I don't drink.
Optional question from — Σxplicit
17. If granted administrative tools, are you willing to make difficult blocks? Why or why not?
A: No, simply because I'd rather not have the worlds 'interesting people' trying to track me down, no matter how anonymous I am.
Optional question from — Protonk (talk)
18 My, there are a lot of questions. Why did you withdraw the last RfA rather than allow it to expire?
A: I withdrew as I felt it was unlikely to pass, and I had received most, if not all of the feedback I could've hoped for. Many of the opposes were 'per X' which doesn't really help in terms of feedback, and the list of those opposes was growing. If I had left it two days rather than withdrawing, I'm pretty certain I would've wasted two days of the communities time.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Slashsock (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Backslash Forwardslash before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

  • Guys - the "this user is 4" thing is clearly a joke. Not being funny, but as the father of a three and a half year old I guarantee 4 year olds don't edit Wikipedia. People with the mindset of a four year old might, but actual physical age of four .... I think not. Havng said that my 9 month old is trying to eat my laptop keyboard as I type - that might count as editing I guess....... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support - No concerns here. Candidate is willing to clear the backlog, and a look at the contributions shows a lot of speedy work. (Whether the tagging was done correctly is for an admin to see) Antivenin 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Why not? — Aitias // discussion 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I say yes. wadester16 | Talk→ 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Excellent CSD work, from what I remember. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support:See no reason why not-can be trusted. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support knows limits. Has requisite experience in requested area. Dlohcierekim 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see avoidance of drama-- other people's, one's own-- as a positive. He is not asking to be a mediator, and being a mediator has nothing to do with CSD'ing. Most of the opposition last time was due to the username board. An area I eschew myself. The benefits outweight the detriments. Dlohcierekim 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to strong support. I fail to see the reason behind Groomtech's oppose. This is not a democracy, a government, an experiment in the inalienable rights of human beings. It is an encyclopedia project. His oppose has nothing to do with the candidate's ability to function in the role of admin. Dlohcierekim 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Candidate has clearly read the detail of their last RFA and learnt from it - that initself is a good start. I've enjoyed only positive encounters with Backslash Forwardslash who strikes me as civil and communicative. Well defined answers to the Q's. Pedro :  Chat  13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. You should've passed in February. NVO (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The retronym in the username is a distinguishing feature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support He would be a strong asset at DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Candidate seems to be clueful and I see no cause for concern. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I'm glad that the candidate realized his mistakes at UAA and recognizes that the area may not be appropriate to work in. Anybody who can admit blunders and put himself before the community again has my support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support \/ should have passed in February for sure. Since then, I have talked with him on and off since then and have gotten the sense of his civility, solid communication skills, and dedication to the project. All of those would make him a great administrator. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support He will definitely be a good admin. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support as his nominator last time around. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – Excellent user, three months can be plenty enough time to improve. Will do fine. American Eagle (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per my nomination last time and then some. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support:Seems like a reliable & trustworthy candidate who has improved as well. Dottydotdot (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented, you already voted.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No issues I see. America69 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. Wizardman 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support User has shown great commitment and improved since last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a clarification is the account being used by more than 1 user or being operated on behalf of a child.Looking at the user contribution they are outstanding but if the user has been around since 9 months than the user would have been just 3 years if he/she is 4 years now as per userpage and looking at the impressive contributions would like this to be clarified before I support.Age is not a criteria for opposing but need a clarification Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you the user is much older than 4. The '4 years old' thing is a joke. Benders Game 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support The user has improved since the last RFA and I trust them if they say they will not handle UAA despite these improvements. The candidate also exhibits a good clue when it comes to deletion related matters. What taints this impression is that they seem too hasty at times. There are cases all over the candidate's contributions where they tagged an article for deletion before realizing that this was a mistake. While I do not think they will delete articles before realizing their mistake, less hastiness when tagging and/or deleting articles can be strongly advised. Even a mistaken and reverted tag might bite a newbie if they see it before one realizes the mistake and reverts it. Regards SoWhy 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has received barnstars and is a good article contributor whose two blocks resulted in unblocks. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)`[reply]
  23. Support Contributions are good, temperament is good. The editor will be a net positive as an admin. Timmeh!(review me) 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support I see no recent problems.--Res2216firestar 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Should do well with the tools. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support --PirateSmackKArrrr! 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PirateSmackK has been banned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I agree with NVO, you should've passed last time, even if you are only four. :) LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support 4-year admins FTW. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I see no reason why User would misuse mop.--(NGG) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Per marked changes and lessons learned from first RfA. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support What!? Not an admin already!? :O -FASTILY (TALK) 23:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. \/ is an excellent vandal-fighter who's proficiency would be greatly enhanced with the admin tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Nothing wrong with a self-nom (my RfA was a rare self-nom as well). Also recently pointed out that buggy ctrl-click thing to me without a warning which indicates that \/ has the restraint necessary for an admin. Valley2city‽ 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support has written a FA and checkfs DYK articles for compliance. He knows how to work out if something satsfies RS, POV, V etc, which many admins who are supposedly great according to some, cannot. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. BackSupportForwardSupport Benders Game 01:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support -download ׀ sign! 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Supported last time no reason not to this time.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Improved from last time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. OK Law type! snype? 03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Great work at DYK, admin tools will help \ be much more productive. Discussions clearly show \ is far older than 4 years old. Royalbroil 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - a strong content editor who has worked hard at addressing issues raised in the last RfA and is significantly improved in both UAA and CSD. Seems fine to me. And really, does anyone seriously believe this editor is 4? Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - per YellowMonkey. AdjustShift (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support as an improved editor with solid contributions. One two three... 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. We need more Kindergarden admins. Seen him around, always solid. Contributions look fine to me, can't think of any reason to even mildly oppose. Give the kid the bit. Yintaɳ  10:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weak support. I supported last time, but now it has only been three months since your last RfA. This is a bit worrying, but not worrying enough to get me to comment anywhere but in the support section. Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I for one welcome our DYK-working overlords. ~ Ameliorate! 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I can't see any reason not to. User is clueful and won't abuse the tools. Firestorm Talk 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Yes! - 2 ... says you, says me 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support based on my history of interaction with this user (mostly at DYK) plus the answers to the RfA questions here. With the notable exception of the "4 years old" claim, in my interactions I have found Backslash Forwardslash to display good judgment. (I supported last time, too.) --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support — Jake Wartenberg 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, great work at DYK. Gained experience since last RfA, and overall I see nothing that tells me he'd cause problems with admin tools. Promoting kindergarten editors to adminship is a step in the right direction for this project. </sarcasm> Jamie☆S93 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Samir 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Per above ⊕Assasin Joe talk 03:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support rootology/equality 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I believe "Slash" has the clue part, I believe he/she is dedicated to the improvement of the 'pedia, and I can't find anything to suggest that they would mis-use the tools. — Ched :  ?  04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I supported \ /'s last RfA, too. As far as I remember, the only big problem with that one was his UAA activity, and since then he seems to have more than rectified anything that people had problems with. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - supported last time, supporting this time as well. I trust that this user will be a successful administrator. Robofish (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - I supported last time, and do the same now. Backslash Forwardslash is a good editor who has displayed sound judgement in admin related areas. I believe he will utilise the tools well. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - we need more sysops, so my only real requirement for RFAs is having clue and not winding people up. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - perhaps I'd agree with the opposers' assertion that 3 months isn't long enough... if I didn't think you were ready last time. I still see no problems that put me off supporting; you're a sensible and knowledgeable user who I trust to operate the admin tools effectively. ~ mazca t|c 10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support – seems like a good user. TheLeftorium 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per above. --t'shael mindmeld 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Dug through your contributions, saw nothing of major concern, !voting supporting, and wishing you good luck and happy editting regardless of the outcome of this rfa :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, No reason to suspect tool abuse, good answers to questions, socking concerns seem to be moot, clearly not four years old. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Weakly. per Ottava Rima and YellowMonkey. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I think it's high time we had a young admin. "Out of the mouth of babes" and all that. Seriously, though, I see no evidence the tools would be abused, and I don't find the oppose reasons to be convincing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Has a good head on his shoulders, from what I have interacted with him. --Neskaya kanetsv? 08:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Good contributions. Is he underage? I don't know and I don't care. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. -- Luk talk 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support and by the way, my four year old nephew has six FA's, so there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - worked with user in past, no doubt will make great admin. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - solid reliable contributor with a good grasp of policy.  Roger Davies talk 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Lots of cream, lots of sugar. Syn 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - great candidate who does very helpful work at DYK; Q5 is loaded (I wouldn't have answered it, because you will get on peoples' bad sides no matter if you say yes or no...), there is absolutely no way he is four unless he is a child genius, not worried about the lack of policy/guideline involvement, and (as an aside) support #36 made me laugh...props to him/her. :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Just another editor that falls within my criteria (it's on my userpage). Someone that's willing to focus more on the project in relation to articles more that of dealing with annoying editors, has a sense of humour and (at least I think he is) willing to only block as a last resort. Have fun. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Deserves double support for setting a good example as to what makes an ideal admin. Yeah, I know it's a dupe.  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 04:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Garion96 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support No major concerns here. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I dont see any reasons to oppose. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 12:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support The opposes are even less convincing and more nitpicky than usual. There is no valid reason I can see to oppose. The answer to the "rights" question is succinct but no less correct for that and the response to the question about recall is the simplest and clearest explanation I have read about the terribly flawed recall procedure. I would, however, recommend editing Wikipedia while enjoying a tipple or two! -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Knows Wikipedia policy. Will be a good admin. I liked his/her responses to questions. -- Wireless Keyboard Click! Clack! 13:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Can be trusted. MBisanz talk 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support – the user's got enough experience, already. Age should be a non-factor in regards to adminship. MuZemike 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Three months is easily enough time between RfAs: there was slightly less than three months between my two RfAs. I'm amazed at the opposes based on age: do some people actually believe that Backslash Forwardslash is four years old? Acalamari 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Renaissancee (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten is true for admins too. So if Backslash Forwardslash is 4 years old that's good enough for me, but in all seriousness, I think he's a good user and the problems from the last RfA appear to be resolved. Cool3 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support As I did last time. Folks can look back to my old comments for some detailed discussion of the candidate's CSD tagging (which I feel is accurate, by and large). Protonk (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support per nom. Keeper | 76 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Haven't had any interaction of late, but has always been friendly and a keen learner. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Absolutely - nearly missed this one - but I whole-heartedly support your request. Best of luck.--VS talk 07:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Excellent candidate, and has been extremely helpful and professional in my dealings with him. Best of luck.  Chzz  ►  07:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, will do a great job and looks trustworthy to me. Jozal (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Sure. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support I agree with everyone above.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Weak Support. As I said during his last RfA, Backslash Forwardslash has the potential to be a good admin. I would have preferred he acquire a bit more experience since then, but he's done much to address my prior concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. |No reason not to. Excellent user. Pmlinediter  Talk 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - I've seen you around WP a lot and I like your answers to the questions. I wish you a favorable statistical outcome on this RfA! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 13:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 - looks like he'll be fine admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. No actual problems raised in the opposition (more like scraping the barrel and clutching at straws, desperate for some reason to oppose). A fine candidate. Majorly talk 16:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. I can't find a single reason to oppose. — Σxplicit 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. These opposes are crap. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Happy to support, I see nothing of real concern in the opposes (that the candidate can laugh at himself is a promising sign; it's when we take ourselves too seriously I start to worry). EyeSerenetalk 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Looks good to me. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support --Grahame (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Honestly, some of the opposes are pretty lame. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support: per above. South Bay (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. I would still like to see more experience in dispute resolution and noticeboard activity, and I'm not entirely convinced that three months or so is enough time to prove a true commitment to fixing issues in RfA rather than just sprucing up for the RfA's sake. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I do not support granting adminship to users who are under 18. Keepscases (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How old is he then? I can't see anywhere that tells me this.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it does say that he is 4 years old on his userpage. America69 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be me but somehow I doubt that this is really his age... SoWhy 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I'm just be fair as to why he may be opposing. America69 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A precocious 4-year-old indeed. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have got to be kidding me. Do any of you seriously believe this user is only four? My username implies I'm the president of the Galaxy, do you believe that too? (If you do it opens up some very interesting possibilities...) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I at times really do feel as if I am just a nobody... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean Ex-President of the Galaxy. Somebody has a some swollen head heads. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it Infintely Improbable to move this to the talk page:) ? Self evidently the candidate is not 4. I think a simple explanation of the user box would address this. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, this is just as an aside, but I became an admin at well under 18 and haven't done anything to destroy or otherwise damage the site in my three and a half years of adminship. Even if Backslash Forwardslash were under 18, I don't see how that somehow negates their ability to be a decent administrator. One two three... 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just an age-old (no pun intended) debate that rages at WT:RFA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose A fresh coat of paint since his last RFA, but problems raised there have not been fixed, or even addressed. I see limited non-automated and talk page edits indicating I can place my trust in this user. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here - DougsTech (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is indefinitely blocked for disruption at RFA and elsewhere -- Tinu Cherian - 12:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reluctant oppose per David Fuchs—three months is too little time since the last RfA for you to have entirely cleared up, save for "glossing over" (my version of his phrase "spruced up"...) Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I agree. Also all the backtracking and I can't remembers in the candidate's answer to Rootology's questions, sets my Spidey sense A-Tingling.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rootology's Question 7a reminded me that I had made an account in '05/'06, and I tried to answer as truthfully as possible. I left a note saying I would search and try and find it because I hadn't had it for long, and because it would've looked odd to not answer that question along with the others. I'm not trying to be deceitful, I just genuinely had issues trying to remember an account I had about 20 edits on in '06. :) ∗ \ / {talk} 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's extraordinary to have created an account as a 1-year-old child, and remember the account information, too. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem we have a prodigy here:) But it is still far too soon to trust him with the mop.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: I have no inclination to award power or authority to anyone who does not believe that other people have rights. Groomtech (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But you didn't ask (Q5) if people have rights, you asked if Wikipedia editors have rights... that seems to me to be a different context. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll ask. What rights do Wikipedia editors have? Dlohcierekim 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See my talk for more on this. Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per underage thing Peter Damian (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    \ / has explained that the userbox is simply a joke, if that's what you are referring to. As far as I know, he has kept his real age anonymous and could easily not be a minor. Jamie☆S93 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose- Only on the basis that Wikipedians do no have rights. My opinion other then that is that this person is a very fine editor at Wikipedia. This will most likely be a futile vote but hopes the editor realizes that this doesn't help his case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with what you are saying, I don't believe the answer to a loaded question should be the determining factor as to whether one opposes or supports. Dlohcierekim 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification-- this is an encyclopedia and a private website. There is no question of rights here. Policy-wise, his answer is good. Dlohcierekim 17:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    you're absolutely right this is an encyclopedia but if we have no rights and we give that person power we give that person an unlimited right to do as he pleases. Overall the answers lacked substance and glossed over some other things. I see a lack of respect of others in that comment and think that it is unwise to invest power in that type of person. (no offense intended) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that the word 'rights' was a misnomer, as it conjures and image of a supreme entitlement. Just because I think that rights is not the right word for it, does not mean I think common decency and professionalism should be discarded. You may not have a 'right' to free speech here, but we should do our best to accommodate users of all political viewpoints an ideals. We do not have a 'right' to edit, but if an admin blocked hundreds of editors with no warning he'd expect to be reprimanded. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Self nominated, less than 6 months since last attempt. Immature. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose. I don't care for this "I'm 4 years old" bit. So it's a joke – why would any mature person say that about him/herself? Or expect to be taken seriously? Cannot support for admin as long as you self-identify as a child – as an admin, your user page will be viewed by many Wikipedians and having an admin who says he's a 4-year old is unbecoming. Candidate has not addressed this concern and userpage remains unchanged, so I've moved from Neutral to Oppose, accordingly.  JGHowes  talk 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt anyone in their right mind will believe for a second that he's 4 years old. It's a joke, lighten up. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Juliancolton, we will have to agree to disagree. I know he's older, but it indicates immaturity. Even if it's a leapling joke, it's still self-identifying as a minor. I had hoped he would remove it from his userpage by now, as I wanted to support.  JGHowes  talk 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't self-identify as a four-tear old while editing. I don't joke about it, act like a four year old; I don't even mention it. The only thing referring to it is that quiet userbox, which is a pretty harmless joke when you compare it to other 'jokes' you see here. I have changed it so that I am not 'self-identifying' as a child. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your assurance. I wish you great success as an admin.  JGHowes  talk 05:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral - I don't care enough to oppose, but your signature is potentially very confusing for a new user. --B (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral — Someone who can't think of a specific change they'd like to make to a policy, probably hasn't spent enough time thinking about Wikipedia's policies. I'm also not seeing enough participation in collaborative or contentious areas such as DRV, AfD, dispute resolution etc. for my taste... but I don't feel I can oppose because I do think this candidate has the right temparament and attitude for adminship.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newt I pre-apologize for this, but I'm going to have to use your initials Backslash Forwardslash and refer to you as my BF. It would help to get a signature change. Your current one, as stated by B, is potentially confusing. If you could just add some text in there or something... eh. I'll stop here since I haven't been active much at all since your last RfA, and have had nothing to go by in the "improvement" category, and a M*A*S*H marathon is preventing me from looking any further into your contribs. Have a great time with the tools if you get 'em, don't worry about it if you don't. [​flaminglawyer] 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how it could be confusing, and have changed it accordingly. Let me know if it is an improvement. :) ∗ \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better :) . *stays neutral however, don't mind it* [​flaminglawyer] 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I don't care for this "I'm 4 years old" bit. So it's a joke – why would any mature adult say that about him/herself? Or expect to be taken seriously? Cannot support for admin as long as you self-identify as a child – as an admin, your user page will be viewed by many Wikipedians. JGHowes  talk 05:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (moved to "Oppose")[reply]
  4. Neutral. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning towards oppose per all of the comments here. Portraying immaturity when maturity is expected isn't something we should encourage. — BQZip01 — talk 03:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a joke and should be taken with a grain of salt. Plus, jokes and maturity are not mutually exclusive items. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Would support, but I have a policy of not supporting candidates under the age of 85. Gurch (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash_2&oldid=1091464126"