Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Backslash Forwardslash 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dottydotdot (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 28 May 2009 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:06, 28 May 2009 by Dottydotdot (talk | contribs) (→Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Backslash Forwardslash

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (18/1/0); Scheduled to end 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are already perfect, please say so.
A:


General comments

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

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support
  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)
  2. Support Why not? — Aitias // discussion 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support I say yes. wadester16 | Talk→ 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support Excellent CSD work, from what I remember. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support:See no reason why not-can be trusted. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support knows limits. Has requisite experience in requested area. Dlohcierekim 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    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)
  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)
  8. Support. You should've passed in February. NVO (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The retronym in the username is a distinguishing feature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support He would be a strong asset at DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support Candidate seems to be clueful and I see no cause for concern. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  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 / ) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  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) 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support He will definitely be a good admin. Thingg 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. Strong support as his nominator last time around. –Juliancolton |  17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  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)
  17. Per my nomination last time and then some. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support:Seems like a reliable & trustworthy candidate who has improved as well. Dottydotdot (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  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 14:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral