The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final tally (66/29/5); Scheduled to end 17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC), withdrawn by candidate.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) – Here we have Backslash Forwardslash, a.k.a \ /. This user is well-versed in his editing, and has mastered the nearly impossible art of balancing the various aspects of the encyclopedia. In terms of vandal-fighting, \ / has thorough experience with huggle and twinkle, and has accumulated 122 reports to AIV. He (or she, but I'll use "he" for convenience) has also reported numerous usernames to UAA, quite accurately, I might add. Shown here, the user actively participates in community discussions and noticboards, such as AN and ANI. In addition, his AFD and MFD nominations are generally spot-on, demonstrating the judgment we look for in an administrator.

Ah, but Backslash isn't just a Wikignome. He improved Bruce Kingsbury from Start-class to FA-class, and substantially contributed to Australia Day, a GA. But his work doesn't stop there; he is active in DYK, both as a clerk and a nominator, frequently updating helping to update T:DYK/N. Several other editors have noticed and appreciated his work, hence his several barnstars, as well as a recently awarded triple crown. Also, per this, admins only, this user is an active and accurate CSD participant. Clean block log, an edit count of nearly 10,000 contributions, rollback and ACC permissions, the list goes on and on. I'm sure by now, through this fairly short and concise nomination statement, you'll see why I'm confident Backslash will make an excellent admin. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) co-nomination from  GARDEN : I am honoured to nominate a user as all-round helpful as Blackslash Forwardslash. I personally know Backslash Forwardslash from his work at account creation. He has, as of the time of writing, created 143 (one hundred and fourty three) accounts there. This shows that he is trustworthy and is not abusive of his accountcreator right, thus I can pretty safely suggest he will treat adminship in the same way. He is an adept vandal fighter as Juliancolton points out above, and the experience he has there will obviously be of utmost importance and utility to him in a sysop role.

He has experience of article building, having, as stated above, achieved an FA, a GA and several DYKs. The most inspiring part of this is that he has achieved the FA - a process that can be too much for even a GA - from a Start class article. His edit count is adequate, but not overly overpowering - it is nearing ten thousand, which is enough to silence both the editcountitists and Huggle haters in equal measure. He has no other problems I can see - no blocks, and no abuse of his rollback bit. It is for these reasons, and more, that I'm positive \ / will make a great sysop on the English Wikipedia.  GARDEN  20:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I accept. • \ / (⁂) 20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear what the likely outcome will be, so the best course of action is to withdraw. Since I find thankspam tacky, I'd like to show my appreciation for everyone who made their opinions heard here. Julian, Garden and all the other supporters, thanks for your encouragement. Iridescent, Ottava, KP and the other opposers, thanks for the feedback. It is always nice to know how to improve and rest assured I'll make at effort to alleviate your concerns with my editing. I don't plan to drift away from Wikipedia after this, so I look forward to editing with you all. Cheers. • \ / (⁂) 07:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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'll spend some time milling around AIV, UAA and CSD –- all three manage to get backlogged at some point so I'm happy to help out there. I also plan to be helping out at WP:DYK, as the six-hourly updates regularly need admin attention.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am pretty happy with my contributions to Bruce Kingsbury. It was the first article I had tried to expand, and it steadily improved over the course of a few months. I am also happy with getting Australia Day to GA, which was a part of Wikiproject Australia's 200 GA Drive. I managed to contact author Tess Gerritsen not long ago to request permission to use a photo, and learnt first hand how a subject of a BLP feels.

In other areas, I'm very happy with the work I've done preparing updates at DYK. DYK is a project than is either massively backlogged, or empty, so spending time there can have you on your toes. It's hard to say that I'm proud of reporting vandalism - it would be best if it never happened - but I guess I'm pleased that I have helped out there too.

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: I have seen a few disputes in the time I've been here, but nothing in which I feel like I lashed out, or went over the top. There was an incident at DYK, when a dispute concerning calculating article size broke out. I did my best to try and streamline the discussion into something productive DYK talk page, and I think it worked to an extent. I also had in interesting experience in November, being accidentally blocked. Again, things stayed calm and all was well. I'm yet to find something on Wikipedia that makes me lose my cool, simply because unlike in a heated, spoken argument, there is always time to deliver a measured, reasoned response.

Optional questions from Aitias

4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Yes. If the page is very blatantly vandalism, then I would delete without concern. If it was nominated as any others, mainly A7 or G11, I would spend a bit more time searching for any notability and if there is the slightest bit of doubt, I wouldn't delete. That said, watch listing the page after the hangon tag was honoured would be the next logical step.

5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. To be honest, I haven't considered what my standards would be. I guess I would like to see some solid evidence that the user can be trusted, along with some accurate reversions, but I haven't given assigning permissions enough thought to give you precise numbers.

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. As far as my understanding goes, non-free photographs shouldn't be used on living persons pages, as they are replaceable. There are exceptions, such as unique pictures that can't be replaced, such as this and this, but 99% of the time, non-free images are unacceptable.

7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. I can't see why blocking the IP who replaced a user page with expletives would be inappropriate. We don't own our user pages, and vandalising a user page is no different from vandalising an article. Unless there was another issue not mentioned (content dispute, previous block), then certainly I believe blocking would not be inappropriate.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. If the user is a clearly disruptive vandal (Gwp and co.), or a confirmed sockpuppet, then warning would be a waste of time. Other than that, the standard warning routine should be adopted.

Q's from flaminglawyer

9. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, give a real-life analogy between the two.

A. While both are designed to avoid damage to Wikipedia, blocks are the only 'physical' restriction. They are issued by an admin and use the MediaWiki system to prevent the user editing. A ban is not so physical, more a abstract form of editing restriction. They can be put in place by admins, the community or ArbCom, and are typically used to stop editors editing certain pages, topics, or the whole site. A block will often be used to enforce a site wide ban.

As for a real life analogy? Lets say a store clerk is abusing his access the the stores cash register. The boss may come along and move the employee into the storeroom, and informs him that he isn't allowed to serve customers. (I know, nice boss) There is nothing physically stopping the employee from accessing the register, only the threat of dismissal. If the boss is particularly displeased about the behaviour, he may choose to change the password for the employee's register username, hence physically preventing the employee from logging in and accessing the cash.

10. As an admin, you are going to be expected to work in many more areas than the ones you listed in Q1. Are there any areas of WP in which you feel you lack experience? How do you plan to improve your knowledge in these areas?

A. No one can gain experience in everything, and there are many parts of Wikipedia I just haven't come across. Some noticeboards such as WP:AN3 or WP:FRN I haven't had much to do with, among some others. In terms of improvement, I think the only thing one can do to gain experience is to study, watch other admins and how they do things, and maybe doing some things that don't require the tools. It would be irresponsible to go charging into an area with no experience expecting to do everything.

Q from Ottava Rima

11. Since I am listed as one of your answers above - Based on your closing of an ongoing talk page discussion in the middle of a discussion that was about concerns that the DYK community was too insular and that a larger consensus needs to be brought about via notice on Village Pump, do you think that it is an admin's right to interrupt discussions by "closing" them and archiving them so that outsiders would be unable to find them and instill the idea that consensus only pertains to the views of a select few that you happen to spend most of your time working with and not the community as a whole?

A. No, see my response to your oppose

Optional questions from TomStar81

12. When you said you planned on being involved in UAA related matters, what exactly did you mean? Were you planning to continue reporting names as you have been doing, or were you planning to investigate the claims brought to UAA, and if necessary, block them?

A. Sorry for not responding to this sooner. When I mentioned I would work in UAA, I was merely listing it as one of the places where I might make myself useful. Too many times have I gone to report a username and found a double-figure backlog. I didn't explain specifically what I planned at UAA in Q1, perhaps an error of judgement, but I may as well expand on it now. I touched on what I planned to do at UAA in response to NuclearWarfare's request in the neutral section. Basically, I don't want to deal with the usernames that may be borderline offensive, or possibly potentially misleading. I was more planning to help block the obvious cases. It's not hard to work out that 'User:Ilovadacock' or User:Woodyallentightass is an offensive username, nor is User:GRAVITY CO., LTD Hiroyuki Matsushima a borderline case.

Ironically enough it was UAA I had planned to do the least amount of administrative duties on. DYK is far more interesting, and I feel a lot more confident when working on AIV and CSD. As I said before, I'm not easily offended and you can never judge how other people will react, so I always erred on the side of reporting rather than ignoring.

13. If you would, please explain in your own words how you interpret WP:IU.

A. Well, misleading usernames implicate things about the user that, well, mislead people. WikiAdmin, Admin00, and WikiModerator are clear impressions of undue authority. Names that insinuate the account is shared also can be considered as misleading, for example, SpringfieldHighITClass.

Promotional Usernames suggest the sole purpose of the account is to advertise, such as SkidSnowboards Ltd or Shoponline.com.

Offensive is pretty easy - a username that is so 'offensive' that it is impossible to work with such user. 'F.U.C.K.Y.O.U' or any other username with profanities in it will likely violate this policy.

Disruptive usernames suggest that the user's sole intent is to derail Wikipedia, harass other users, troll or be otherwise a nuisance. I'm thinking 'UsernameBlockTime', 'Backcock Forwardcock' and others along those lines.

• Links for Backslash Forwardslash: Backslash Forwardslash (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.

• The entries in his block log are mistakes and should be ignored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since a majority of concerns are relating to my contribs at UAA, I have made a list of every username I have reported. A handful were blocked as vandalism accounts, and a handful were given warnings but didn't respond. • \ / (⁂) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidently I am the only one capable of reading the English language words here on the English language Wikipedia, because if the rest of you -particularly the opposers- had bothered to do so you would discover that UAA is where BSFS plans on spending some time, not all of his time. So he made a few mistakes, and you have all discovered them. So far you've only demonstrated that like every other human we all have our areas of weakness. Insofar as this nom is concerned, I think people need to focus less on whats written in the answer column and more on whats presented elsewhere. Otherwise, you all are not going to make informed decisions, you are instead going to make educated guesses as to what will happen if he gets the tools, and making a guess about someone based on a poorly expressed answer violates the essence of assume good faith. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't lecture on assuming good faith after insulting dozen of people's ability to read. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Then there two people who can read English, and my faith in the process is somewhat restored. Its good to know that others such as yourself to take the time to look at all aspects of an rfa, as I was under the impression from some of the oppositions below that people simply read what they wanted to read and disregarded the rest. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Iridescent and KP Botany appear to misunderstand what the fallacious Google test actually is. It is this: (1) Googling the topic X. (2) Not examining any of the hits to check whether any of them are reliable, independent, and actually about the topic at hand. (3) Nevertheless concluding that X must be notable because there are, zomg, 5 billion hits. For examples of the actual fallacious Google test in action, see [1][2].

  Backslash did not use the fallacious Google test at all. In his afd nominations he in effect said "I looked for sources on Google and found none." For neologisms, that should be enough to conclude non-notability, because Google is likely to have sources on a neologism if any sources exist. KP Botany is probably right that for science topics, a more thorough search for sources is required.

  And on a side note, if I haven't misunderstood KP Botany, s/he suggested that Porkupus was speedy deletable as patent nonsense. That is simply not true. It's not patent nonsense at all. So not only was Backslash's argument for deletion was a good one, the afd was necessary to delete the article. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoa. I'm using the term "Google test" in the exact opposite to the way you describe; the assumption that "it got no hits on Google" means "it doesn't exist". The fact that the articles were ultimately deleted has no relevance; the examples I cited (all within a week of the RFA, so I'm not cherry-picking from the past) were all "Propose deletion: no hits on Google". I would accept something along the lines of "It is a reasonable assumption that a widely-used term in popular culture would be listed on Google and the fact that it doesn't indicates against its notability in addition to these other factors", but – on any article – "delete, 0 ghits" is an empty argument. As Kpbotany says, the history of Wikipedia is littered with editors who've had valid specialist articles deleted by trigger-happy admins on "I've not heard of it and it's not easy to find sources" grounds (the "this book is not in my local library so I do not consider it a reliable source" argument I'm so fond of quoting really did happen), and their authors quitting the project in disgust (this is probably the most notorious example) and I think this kind of hair-trigger deletion is genuinely disruptive. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but Kpbotany and I are entitled to ours. – iridescent 22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per WP:WHYNOT. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Beat the nom Based on what Julian said (as I've never met \ / but have seen his signature), he sounds like the best non-admin around, support.--Giants27 TC 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Would have written a co-nomination if Julian hadn't transcluded this so quickly.  GARDEN  20:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You can still co-nom. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Orly? Bit late, methinks.  :(  GARDEN  20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support. Very happy with everything I've seen from this user. Varied and intelligent contributions to a variety of areas, appears to be an excellent choice for an administrator. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Thought-he-was-one-already (edit conflict, too!) Support. Hermione1980 20:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak Support Support The relatively short tenure - just over 6 months - is more than made up for by a lot of work, numerous awards, the nominators statements, etc. I have not looked into his policy knowledge but the overall look of his talk pages and user sub-pages as well as the numerous requests to co-nom give me a good feeling either he knows policy or will learn it before applying it. He's been a rollbacker and account-creator for longer than not, that shows responsibility. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC) The concerns raised by opposers are eroding my support, but it's still above neutral. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Control-alt-delete-enter-space-shift-tab-capslock-backspace-numlock. (Also for my observations of this user, which have been nothing but positive.) Acalamari 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong support as nom –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. A stellar candidate, no reason not to support! Good luck Majorly talk 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Is not going to break the Wiki. Contributions look good, has large amount of clue. Isn't perfect, but none of us are. The opposes are less than convincing (and some appear to be axe grinding about the process rather than the candidate). --Chasingsol^(talk) 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Default support Opposes are unconvincing to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Very strong support (read: long-winded support) Had been thinking of nominating \ / myself, but I was too oblivious around here and missed my chance to co-nom ;). Anyway, \ / has been a huge asset to DYK for as long as I've known him, taking part in areas such as assessing nominations and maintaining the queues, as well as technical stuff like revamping nomination templates. Furthermore, his strongest asset is his ability to build bridges with users and work constructively with just about anyone, as evidenced by the discussion linked below in response to Ottava Rima's oppose above in his response to Q3—rather than arguing with O R and fighting, \ / worked with O R to turn O R's concerns into a proposal and put it to a vote, which I think shows a strong ability to get things done even when working with people you disagree with. (And, for what it's worth, I don't get along with Ottava Rima, so supporting a candidate who has gotten along with Ottava Rima in the past should be saying something.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and of course the above user would see the situation as -working- with someone you don't like. However, having Backslash close a discussion after his friends stated that outside consensus, Village Pump notice, etc, would be inappropriate is definitely a strong concern regardless of what happened after a few Arbitrators (or those who then became Arbitrators) came in to try settle the situation by saying a larger consensus was appropriate. If it weren't for those like Rlevse taking on the claims of Gatoclass et al that community consensus wasn't necessary, Backslash would have not had any pressure to open the poll, let alone alter the polling questions to be fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "I hate Ottava Rima" is an outright personal attack. Not on.  GARDEN  15:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support One of the first times I am sorely tempted to "support per oppose ABC" despite the tackiness of that type of comment. Ironholds and iridescent note troubling marginal UAA calls. Those are convincing and helpful (insofar as they inform the rest of us and might serve as constructive criticism to the candidate. Not so the others (here excluding those opposing 'per' iridescent). I've reviewed this candidate's deleted contributions and find that s/he is a competent and largely accurate CSD tagger. There are a few misfires there, some borderline G11's and A7's, and a case where the candidate reinsterted a speedy tag after it was removed by someone "other" than the author (although that could go either way, both accounts only edited that page, so one could easily see the second account as an SPA made to remove the speedy). But these are not patterns. They are exceptions to otherwise very competent tagging. He appears (from a look at his non-deleted contributions) to be clear and diplomatic. I would prefer to see more project space contributions, but I don't have much doubt that \/ will be a great admin. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Anything to offset that guy. But still, appears to be a strong contributor and I enjoyed his FA! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support Has made many very good contributions to wikipedia and his work on the Melbourne Airport article seems to have flown under the radar. I'd defiantly trust this user with admin tools and see no reason to oppose. --Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 23:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hope you meant "definitely" ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's the one :) --Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 03:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support, per my personal experience, as this person is a strong contributor who is willing and able to get vital tasks done. Giving him the mop and the tools will only be an improvement. - Dravecky (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Seems to be OK with AIV and CSD, though I would recommend turning the thermostat down a couple of notches before dealing with UAA. I would take on board Iridescent's concerns about usernames. Had to go back to the second 500 Wikipedia space edits, but in a sample of ten WP:AIV reports, I found none rejected. A review of deleted contribs shows lots of articles that were speedy tagged. Only found one that I felt was incorrect. tagged a nn neologism for review at AFD so not in a hurry to hastily delete. Granting rollback is not something I look at. I agree with Answer 7. What difference does it make if a vandal vandalizes you user page? It is not a conflict of interest, and why should an admin wait for the vandalism to continue before blocking? Blocking is for the purpose of protecting the 'pedia. AFD-- While Google test must be used with caution, and a rephrase is in order, if there are no reliable sources with verifiable information, and if used for subjects for which it would be reasonable to find such, is that not a perfectly valid reason to delete? Article building is always a plus. Dlohcierekim 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See below. I had not seen this response, which alleviates my concern with UAA. Dlohcierekim 00:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Protonk also makes some strikingly good points above. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Response to me shows that his has "CLUE." Per Protonk and Dloh. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I am happy to support a Triple Crown winner. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I fail to see any serious problems with \ /, I would suggest to think more carefully about who you report to UAA, but besides that, I have no problems with this user; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - This alleviates my UAA concerns. — neuro^(talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. I've seen this editor around quite a bit, and always knew they would make a great sysop some day. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - Most certainly convinced by his reply to NuclearWarfare. iMatthew // talk // 01:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - User seems to have a good record of positive edits and article writing. I'm satisfied by \ /'s explanations for UAA concerns. FlyingToaster 01:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak Support I don;t approve of using the Googletest except when it is actually appropriate. In the three instances cited as dubious, it was IMO appropriate, and they were correct AfD nominations. As for usernames, I do not block promotional usernames right off, but just take the opportunity to explain & ask them to change, but many good admins do otherwise than I. DGG (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you have any reasons to support, DGG? Most of what you say seems like an oppose. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With the AfDs, I thought I was saying that I was able to support despite the problems raised in the opposes, because in fact he came to the right result. With the UAAs, I was saying that I think he is within most people's standards. DGG (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26. Support From what I've seen, he/she is a generally open minded and good spirited editor and not easily hassled. Both good qualities in an admin. Can't see him/her doing irrevocable damage so WP:WTHN. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - I do recall thus user being good-natured somewhere that I interacted with them (I think). Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hint. :) • \ / (⁂) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaah (lightbulb above head goes on now) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28. Weak support Answers to my questions sound reasonable. Opposes are not convincing. — Aitias // discussion 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Weak support - See my old oppose and response to NuclearWarfare in Neutral. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - I like the answers to questions, the only possible exception being "your own user page is vandalized after warning". Quality edits from the ones I've looked at. I don't see anything but "benefit to the community" in this one. — Ched (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Nice, widespread array of contributions. Won't hack the wiki. Sam ^Blab 15:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, good contributions. --Aqwis (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards, i.e. candidate's two blocks were subsequently unblocked, candidate has barnstar and good article credits on userpage, and due to memorable negative interactions elsewhere. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - I have a very positive impression of this user from interactions, mostly related to WP:DYK. "could have sworn he was an admin already." --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 19:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Could use a little more experience but all in all I don't see much cause for concern. I don't find the UAA diffs that scandalous though perhaps it's just that I'm not familiar with that process. Likely a net positive to give him the mop. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - UAA mistakes do not persuade me. In my succesful RfA, I was opposed for UAA mistakes. I immediately learned from them, and have not made a mistake similar to the ones brought up. I think that \/ has learned about those requests, and will be a good admin. Xclamation point 21:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I've had nothing but positive interactions with this user, and I think s/he would be a great admin. LittleMountain5 ^{Happy Valentine's Day!} 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Weak support. Just be careful at WP:UAA. I'm sure you've learned from your mistakes. Malinaccier (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support: I'm not convinced by the arguments brought up by the opposers. WP:UAA isn't my area of expertise, but I don't see anything wrong with the majority of your edits there; a few are questionable, but we all make mistakes. My only real negative comment is that you have a slightly annoying signature. :) Robofish (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - good editor, always helpful and willing to lend a hand. Possibly a little green, but in my experience Backslash Forwardslash is both open to any advice and also a swift learner. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Good editor, won't abuse tools. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - when people like a guy so much that the nom is support #8... but serious now. I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user, and I think that he will now be a good UAA person after the feedback he's gotten in the oppose section. Short version: net positive to the project. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I have reviewed your contribs, logs, and discussions with other editors (including the issues raised under opposes such as DYK closures, and UAA) and see nothing that personally concerns me and you have the support of many people I trust and respect including the nom fr33kman -s- 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support I've reviewed his contribs and many of the issues brought up by opposers. I think it's easy to say that his positive contributions greatly outweigh his past mistakes, which he honestly disclosed during this RfA (which I expect to see). Juliancolton's nom also weighs well with me. I don't see this user abusing the tools and the answer to Q 10 impresses me such that he will go it slow, study, and learn, and eventually branch out into more admin areas; exactly what a new admin should do. He easily passes my criteria. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Not at all convenced by the UAA mistake opposes. Support for someone who will make a good admin. VX!^~~~ 19:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Seen hiswork on MILHIST an d I also presumed he already had the tools etc Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Seems like a good editor. Waterjuice (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong support. Wizardman 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - No-brainer. Simon^KSK
52. Strong support trakc record of hands on work and runs on the board speaks for itself. As for UAA, most of the borderline stuff that goes there are from users that don't become productive, so it's not like he provoked a riot among established editors. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Agree with nom, agree that he would be an asset as an admin. Regarding iridescent's oppose below: the three AfD noms were three articles that absolutely should be deleted (Nizle, Porkupus and Jimbobbing) which strikes me as good judgment as opposed to poor judgment. -- Samir 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support I've seen \/ around the anti-vandal world, He's not going to abuse the tools. ERK ^{talk • contribs} 14:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have carefully considered the opposers' comments, and find some of the concerns raised to be legitimate, but the candidate's responses convince me that he has learned from what has been pointed out. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I hope that the candidate will continue participating and try again in the future, as it has been a long time since we admitted a semi-retronym to the administrator corps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this is an RfA and not an unblock request/unban request, is "learning" really what we are aiming for? RfA is based on trust. Learning doesn't necessitate a return to a situation in which we can trust the editor. Perhaps you feel there is enough time between the events to return to trusting them. However, that would place some of the events to just recently, which would seem to show that almost no time is needed for trust. Wouldn't that create a double standard with Backslash and others? Or do you feel that all people can regain the trust of the community after just a few weeks after their mistakes? Most of those people tend to wait for 6 months since the mistake to even bother with an RfA. Backslash barely has six months on the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

56. Support - I fully agree with Newyorkbrad above. I find this editor a calming, open-minded presence, especially when dealing with difficult editors. Exhibits good judgment. Learns quickly. I believe in his ability to grow on the job and do not see a possibility of abuse. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support per Newyorkbrad Parler Vous (edits) 18:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support good enough to become an admin in my opinion. --Caspian blue 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Syjytg (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
60. Support - legitimate opposes, but not enough to sway me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Since most of the opposition cites UAA issues, and since crats are great with UAA issues, and since we're sitting at 69.8%. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support I have absolutely no concerns about this candidate's ability to function well as an admin, and to remain a valuable member of the community. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - per Newyorkbrad. AdjustShift (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support I accept that a few UAA noms are borderline, and might have qualified for a warning template rather than a nomination; but this is nowhere near enough to offset his otherwise excellent work. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I've been impressed with Backslash Forwardslash's help at DYK. Royalbroil 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support per Juliancolton and Davidwr. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On the other hand, per Garden as well. :) --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - The eagerness to close discussions prematurely seems to show a disregard for the fundamentals of consensus and a desire to hurry up and push an idea through before it can be thoroughly vetted by the community at large. This is not a good trait to have when wanting to be an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Would you mind pointing to an example or two of these? It sounds like a valid concern but I haven't seen anything worrying in my quick review of contribs. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Ditto Mazca. This is cause for concern. Had I seen it with examples, I might have waited before adding my support above. Please provide info. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He is referring to my closure of this thread. I had closed it because the discussion of the idea Ottava was proposing had turned ugly, numerous threats of going to ANI were passed around. Upon Ottava's request, I started the poll (I had linked in my answer to question 3) which rose the standards of debate somewhat, and waited until another user closed the discussion. • \ / (⁂) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You closed a thread that had concerns from multiple users that a larger community consensus was necessary. These users included Rlevse, a very respected user around here. You then opened a poll that needed a lot of alterations to not be biased. This was completely unprofessional and is quelling discussion. You don't close talk page discussions like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   To the crat who is closing this: the "concerns from Rlevse" Ottava is mentioning above was actually just a single drive-by comment by Rlevse while he was up for arbcom election, and Rlevse did not return to the discussion or follow up on his comment. Furthermore, \ / didn't suppress the discussion forever, but merely closed a thread that had gotten out of hand and was no longer productive, and specifically stated in his closure that users were welcome to re-open the constructive points of the discussion as separate issues (which he did when he started a poll about the proposal). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Everyone knows that Rlevse is a major content editor and concerned with the consensus about what goes onto the mainpage, so characterizing his comments as "driveby" only verifies the insular, cliquish nature of those whose ideas Backslash's actions supported. This makes it even more dangerous that he closed the discussion in such a manner. He was asked to undo his action and failed to proceed on that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Here is the closure. Here is the poll I started after you expressed your displeasure with the close. My explanation, and your response, which acknowledges the poll, and my response after I followed your additional request. I did the best I could to accommodate your proposals, rather than throw expletives at you like some chose to do. I still feel I did the right thing, the discussion was more a very nasty insult contest, yet it is your right to disagree. But please don't say things like 'He was asked to undo his action and failed to proceed on that.' as if I blatantly refused to do anything to try and help. • \ / (⁂) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What you failed to understand is that discussions don't need to go -anywhere-. They are discussions. Talk pages are there to discuss. As you basically admit, the only reason why you moved onto the poll was through prodding. You made the big mistake and were put in a position that you had to correct it. This shows that you cannot be trusted right now with the bits because you might just do the same thing as an admin, which is dangerous. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   RMHED. 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Excellent rationale, thanks for the insight! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This user opposes everyone and everything, I mean look at the CU/Oversight elections, he voted oppose for every candidate.--Giants27 TC 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Utter bollocks. RMHED. 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   orly?  GARDEN  21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (e/c) Just leave RHMED, he does this everywhere - I doubt anyone will oppose per his lengthy rationale. — neuro^(talk) 21:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) Your choice of words is inappropriate, RMHED. — Aitias // discussion 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   No my choice of words are entirely apt given that what Giants27 wrote is completely incorrect and quite possibly a personal attack. It's a good job I'm not overly sensitive. RMHED. 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (e/c) Just look at his talk page - he constantly uses inappropriate and rude wording and try and reap fruitless discussion about his demeanour, or cause shock, or something. Honestly, if we want to have a discussion about his offensive choice of words, I think it would be better placed at his talk, as it will no doubt extend a good bit. — neuro^(talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yet another personal attack. RMHED. 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, I was careful to avoid one there. Please feel free to list the ad hominem attacks in there, and I'll strike them if they actually are. — neuro^(talk) 21:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Note to all of you – if you'd actually taken the 30 seconds it would have taken to check for yourself, you'd see that RMHED's RFA stats are 76 supports, 17 opposes. We're not exactly talking Kurt levels here. – iridescent 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Uh, Giants wasn't talking about RfA. I don't think anyone has mentioned it. — neuro^(talk) 21:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   As an aside, a few of those supports are merely designed to cause controversy, such as supporting over diffs showing incivility. — neuro^(talk) 21:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Warning - A number of editors ganged up on RHMED here in an inappropriate manner, assuming bad faith and acting in an unnecessarily confrontational manner. RHMED's responses were also personal attacks and uncivil, for which he has been warned, but this behavior is not acceptable. Baiting other users and getting in their face over RfA opposes are not appropriate. Please do not continue this type of abuse here or elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. [3], [4], [5], [6] and that's just at first glance. No way would I trust someone this bitey at UAA given that you've specifically said that's where you intend to work. Your use of the Google test ([7], [8], [9] in the last week alone – that is, 50% of your AFD comments in the period) also leaves me distinctly unimpressed. – iridescent 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Very much agree on the usernames except this one [10].—Sandahl (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "Mangina" is indeed a neologism for the vagina of an FTM TS; however it's also a fairly common name. – iridescent 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, but combined with "super" it could be questionable. It was blocked so someone else agreed. I have to say I would have sent it a nice-uw-username first.—Sandahl (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The bitey usernames are cause for concern, but the neoligism ones are reasonable, if a bit terse in the nomination. 1 is already deleted and the other two are failing fast, with 0 supports. If he's written a couple of sentences saying why it was a neologism, the outcome of the AFDs would be likely no different. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per iridescent. If he can't work out what is and is not a disruptive/bad username when reporting them I hate to think what he'd do with the banhammer actually considering he was reporting them to UAA I'm pretty sure I know what he would do Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. No. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: General discussion moved to talk page ([11]) — Aitias // discussion 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   There was no discussion, only the usual badgering. But let me be specific. It is very unlikely that I would ever vote for a candidate with only 35% of contributions to article space. The effort here is to build an encyclopedia, not a police force. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Tentative oppose - Unhappy with UAA work - the 4th link is permissible, anyone could make such a mistake, but the others leave me wary of supporting your effort to get the tools. — neuro^(talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to support. — neuro^(talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Strikingly weak oppose I like your attitude, and all of your work here except UAA. However, the concerns raised above with this area are too much for me to support. Good luck, anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Switching to support per reply to NucleaWarfare down in neutral. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per iridescent. I'm not impressed with your UAA edits. Wikipediarules2221 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per iridescnet-Kieran4 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - after 6 months? Needs more seasoning. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, for now. I would like to see this user's enthusiasm tempered with a bit more thoughtfulness, I think this will come with more experience around the project. I suggest becoming involved in some of the slow-running processes such as mediation. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. per Iridescent, Guy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose due to UAA reports that border on ludicrous. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per above reationales, I don't think this user would make a good admin.--Patton^t/c 17:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Regretful oppose. I think that Backslash Forwardslash will prove to be a good admin one day. However, I don't think he's quite ready. I see too many poor decisions recently at UAA. He'll improve over time. Keep up the good work and please don't be discouraged if this RfA doesn't pass. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - Absolutely not. UAA is a very fragile area and requires a very collected and thoughtful touch. This user clearly doesn't have that. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per Wisdom. Joe 19:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per Wisdom, to some degree. \ /'s work doesn't instill the right ammount of confidence in me, and doesn't strike me as someone who would do a fantasimal job with the tools.--Koji† 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Per Wisdom89. I suggest spend a few more months of contribs and working on the concerns above. Sorry. America69 (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per Wisdom and Iridescent. Not the kind of approach we need at UAA.--Dycedarg ж 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like responding to opposes, but for my benefit, can you please tell my which of my UAA reports you have the most concern over? Just so the mistake doesn't get repeated. :)• \ / (⁂) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As the one who originally brought the matter up before this degenerated into a five-way flamewar, I think the first three I mentioned are all fairly indefensible but this is probably the worst of them. – iridescent 02:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I've had an issue or two with computing-related usernames, but I understand your issue with that report. • \ / (⁂) 02:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The one Iridescent just linked to is also the one I was most concerned with, although I also don't really see the reasoning behind User:SURRENDER2 either. I would recommend that you go to WP:RFC/NAME with borderline cases in the future, that's what it's there for after all. WP:UAA is for blatant cases; the fact that you seemingly saw those names as being "blatant" violations is what concerned me. If as you stated below you are not going to use these same standards as an admin reviewing UAA cases I will have to reconsider my oppose.--Dycedarg ж 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose. Inexperienced. Lacks interest in consensus. Per Ottava Riva. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Pointed in the right direction but the bitey username reports are far enough off base that they are worth an oppose by themselves. I won't go into a long wp:bite rant but new users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and any prospective Admin who doesn't already understand that needs to go back and put it into practice some more RxS (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose per the incorrect UAA reports given by Iridescent. SF3 ^(talk!) 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per Iridescent. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose per misinterpretation of policy/guidelins. There's no google test on WP:Notability. I'm tired of watching hard science articles get deleted because editors who don't read science articles cite the failure of the google test. Maybe you're not deleting hard science articles, but you need to read the policy on notability before you continue citing lack of notability = failed the google test. --KP Botany (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no way I would use the Google test as rationale for lack of notability. The AfD's I have used the 'Google test' for are articles I stumbled across on New Page Patrol, and couldn't find a valid CSD tag. • \ / (⁂) 06:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's really no valid CSD, and you have to resort to "failed the google test, you may be trying too hard to delete articles. I suggest the patent nonsense tag applies to almost all New Pages that should be speedied, that aren't obvious personal biographies of 6th graders, or BLP revenge articles. A New Page isn't evil per se, and google isn't a valid criterion for deletion, either speedy or AfD. That you use it means, to me, that you are not reading policy and guidelines, the consensus of the community, correctly. Community consensus is important, and administrators should know that. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The patent nonsense CSD tag is only for articles that are incoherent text or gibberish. I'm not trying to delete every article I see, but there is no place for Nizle or Porkupus here. Each one could have been tagged with WP:MADEUP, WP:WINAD or more accurately, WP:NEO. • \ / (⁂) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not at all, and your response here is what I mean by you need to read the policy or guideline, especially if you want to enforce it as an administrator. I quote, from Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Porkupus is said to be a neologism, which is deletable without being nominated for no google hits. The other one has been deleted, so I don't know why you quote it to me, as I'm not an administrator and can't access it to see your point. However, you offered one out of two that were deletable for a given reason for AfD, so you're only batting .500. And, imo, you should put it up for deletion for a reason that exists, not offer up the google test. You give the google test a legitimacy that is not there, you and every other editor who nominates an article for deletion based on the google test. If you want the google test to be a reason for deletion, change the policy, don't de facto use the policy you want, because, if you do, there will be problems if you become an administrator and de facto enforce the policy that you want to enforce. --KP Botany (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Anyway, this is my opinion. I think the existing policies should be enforced by administrators and worked with by editors. And I don't see you doing that, so I personally don't consider you well-qualified to be an administrator. --KP Botany (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was searching for [12] diff, it's the best I can do to try and show you I understand full well the dangers of using Google as a notability tester. • \ / (⁂) 11:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose: per WP:NOTNOW. South Bay (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, South Bay, WP:NOTNOW applies to new editors with little, if any, experience. Do you really believe Backslash should be grouped with those users? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With some of his actions at admin related areas, a "not now" would imply the need for more experience so it would be appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTNOW != not now. — neuro^(talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose I would like to see more experience, no need to rush things. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose per Iridescent. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose - per Iridscent, they bring up some strong points as to why Backslash wouldn't be able to hand the admin tools faithfully.--TRUCO 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Editor has clearly got on the wrong side of a an identifiable demographic whose concerns and judgments I and others trust. There's a clear experience problem too, so I'm gonna have to Oppose and ask the editor to come back at a future point. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Encouraging Oppose Ok, I've spent about an hour or two reviewing your CSD edits over the past 3 months. Your work in February is excellent, there were some judgment calls where I would have preferred a different CSD rationale, but there wasn't anything that I would call wrong/bad. In January, about 50% of what I saw was questionable. In early December/late November, almost everything you tagged was mistagged---almost as if you didn't know what the criteria was or that it mattered. In other words, I see definite improvement in what you are doing today as compared to what you were doing even a month ago. But as CSD is such a crucial area, and your edit history indicates a person who wants to work in that area, I need to know that your work is going to be consistently at this higher level and that you won't revert back to your earlier levels once you pass. Again, your work from February is solid and if you keep that up, I can't see how your CSD work will hinder you in a few months. Unfortunately, I don't have to go back too far to find a different story.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) EDIT, I just read through the opposes above, and wanted to point out another positive. The opposes are all addressing issues that you can fix/rectify. Eg, with a few months seasoning and solid work, you should have a better chance of passing.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ↑What he said. My oppose (and by the awesome powers of Delegable Proxy, all those "per" me) isn't "oppose, I don't like you" but "I think you need to work out these problems". RFA can be a flamebath, but if this fails look on it as a failed driving test you can retake in a couple of months, rather than a community-blackballing. – iridescent 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28. Oppose. A good editor, but one with insufficient experience as yet. Some of the issues brought up by Iridescent & I'm Spartacus also trouble me. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strong oppose. His answer to question 8 rings false. He said, "If the user is a clearly disruptive vandal (Gwp and co.), or a confirmed sockpuppet, then warning would be a waste of time. Other than that, the standard warning routine should be adopted." However, we can see that Backslash Forwardslash has attempted to skip the standard warning routine dozens of times simply because he didn't like someone's name. He gives the fact that some of them were blocked as vandals (not as username violations, as he was reporting) as justification, when it really just highlights the fact that he was trying to block newbies faster than the usual process would let him by abusing an unrelated process (UAA). From that answer, I have to conclude that Backslash Forwardslash is either being dishonest or seriously misunderstanding the blocking and username policies. rspεεr (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I resent the insinuation that I am reporting names I don't like, and reporting vandals usernames in the hope of a faster reaction. AIV is patrolled much more frequently than UAA, and usernames such as User:Pisstake246 and User:Raytarded simply vandalised too much after I reported their usernames. • \ / (⁂) 07:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good user, but points by Iridecent are causes for concern. iMatthew // talk // 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC) moved to support.[reply]

NeutralPer Matthew, though I have to qualify that user is an excellent user, it seems :). NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be convinced to support. \/, convince me somehow that you can improve at UAA :) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reports Iridescent quoted were, to me, borderline cases. As someone who isn't easily offended, I tend to err on the side of caution. Rather than letting a potential user name slip through the cracks, I prefer to report it simply because another pair of eyes never hurts. If the admin reviewing doesn't take it as offensive, no harm done.

That then brings the question of what I would do as an admin at UAA. Borderline cases aren't something I particularly want to deal with; I'd rather save others time by blocking the obvious cases. Even if this doesn't pass, I'll certainly be spending a lot more time using the {{uw-username}} as well as searching the list of possible surnames! • \ / (⁂) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response; it has convinced me to support. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral the UAA material is troubling. The AfD issues raised are not. UAA might have involved a lack of understanding or a bad day. Probably a good admin, but I'm worried about judgment. Hobit (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral - I agree with Hobit above. I had originally intended to support, but the UAA issues in particular are troubling to me. In the majority of cases, poor judgment doesn't go away when the mop is given, it only solidifies. I would like to wait a few months and see if this candidate was only having a few bad days, or if his judgment is consistently bad. IF it turns out to be the former, I will happily support next time. Trusilver 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Comment - According to SQL's bot page, Backslash has created 145 accounts. Why would anyone need to do that? Just curious. I also note that according to the same tool his total of 3,510 mainspace edits includes over 2,500 rollbacks. These statistics are currently giving me pause. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I help out at WP:ACC, and all of those accounts, (with the exception of User:Forwardslash Backslash) are as a result of that. • \ / (⁂) 07:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You mean you create accounts on behalf of new users? I didn't know that was possible. You learn something new every day :) Unfortunately, I am still leaning toward oppose because I don't think six months is long enough on the project. The only thing that has prevented me voting up to now is the fact that I appreciate your assistance at DYK, but in principle I don't think people who have been here only six months should be permitted to stand. Nothing personal, it's just the way I see things. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough. :) Also, the guide to ACC in case you are interested. :) • \ / (⁂) 08:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Being given the right to perform ACC with only 6 months on the project? Wow, we have really decreased our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral It works for Switzerland. Keepscases (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral - boderline, sorry, see my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 17 February 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.