Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Jason Quinn

Jason Quinn (talk · contribs) - Active, responsible Wikignome. Jason Quinn 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Counteracting the work of vandals.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm a stickler for spelling and grammar. I also like adding references. Now and then I will begin a new article on some technical topic.
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: Just one. It didn't cause me stress. I stated my opinion on the talk page of the article and moved on.

Optional Questions from Nat

4. What is the difference between indefinite blocking and banning?
A: Bans can be for specific articles (and not necessarily indefinite) whereas indefinite blocking is for an entire account.
5. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?
A: My style of editing (wikignome) rarely comes into conflict with POV pushes. In the cases where I have had disagreements I stated my opinion on the talk page and moved on. POV drama is not the kind of thing I want to spend my free time on.
6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
A: I know non-free content only if no free content is available. I also know about the 48-hour rule. Generally I'm a big supporter of copyright law and err on the hyper-conservative side. If a case came up where I needed to think about it in detail, I would be sure to peruse the policy carefully before my edits.
7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: Sure. I doubt anybody will have issue with anything I do as an admin so there's no reason to worry about being recalled. My admin activity will probably be pretty low compared to others. I highly doubt anybody will think I'm misusing any new privileges.
8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?
A: The goal of Wikipedia is to make the best encyclopaedia as possible that adheres to applicable laws. If some policy, rule, or guideline is preventing that, I would propose changes to it or perhaps decided that the rule is best ignored for some special case.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - I see nothing wrong with his answers. Deb 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    1. Thank you, Deb. I was worried the best I would get was a neutral. Now at least I'll feel a little better. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Moral support, suggest withdrawl Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! Let's go Lightning! 01:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Strong oppose The answers to all the questions and the nom are...not good--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The answers to the questions are not generally very satisfactory, and the answer regarding the difference between bans/blocks does not seem to communicate a very thorough understanding of blocking policy. Combined with a fact that every edit I checked in a random sampling was minor copyediting, I am not satisfied this user is suited to the task of an administrator - particularly when his stated "preferred duties" are to block users. This user is certainly a valuable asset to the 'pedia but doesn't seem to demonstrate readiness for more responsibility. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The candidate doesn't have the level of experience I'd like to see and has very low activity outside mainspace. Majoreditor 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    I consider my high mainspace activity a strength, btw. Jason Quinn 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's not that your high mainspace activity is a problem, it's that you have low activity everywhere else. Being able to fix typos, while valuable to the project, doesn't show that you can gauge consensus (necessary in XfD closings) or have any experience in dealing with conflicts (which is a large part of being an active admin is about, sadly). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per this (a wannabe admin should know what policy is, not what they want it to be, especially for something as common as this) and this use of personal opinion as fact (and in the edit summary, too). Also, as EVula says, while editcounting is A Bad Thing, you have fewer edits (mostly minor edits) in three years than I have this month, and I'm not especially active. — iridescent 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    1. I'm glad you never had to look up a policy after becoming an admin. And you should have posted my own comment to my remark. And I'd point out that at the least I was trying to inform the maintainer of a bot of a case where Wikipedia itself was causing problems with his bot. Regarding your second point, I am still right about what I wrote even if I wish I had worded it less strongly. In context, my point was regarding statement which contain phrases like "Some people say X" or "Many people claim X". X itself may be an opinion that would violate NPOV but "Some people say X" may be a fact. And, if you think about it, even a fact like that can violate NPOV if it gives undo platform to a tiny minority. It was debate about wording itself. Jason Quinn 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. More experience required. Miranda 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. Contributions are not exactly solid, answers are sub-par, experience level is low. Work on these things and answer might be different in the future. Ronnotel 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per lack of experience and policy knowledge (especially his answer regarding the difference between bans and indefblocks). --Angelo 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. No Lack of experience. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Answers to questions are unsatifactory, does not show sufficient knowledge of policy. Has been editor for a long time, but is not really active. I recommend withdrawing this RFA for now, getting more edits in the Wikipedia namespace (such as WP:AFD), and applying again in a few months. I also recommend looking over the list of policies. Useight 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, withdraw suggested, inexpierenced editor who can use much more familarity with policy and procedure, I suggest joining WP:ADOPT for training. Marlith T/C 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, and very sorry, since you have been around so long, but you have not done enough for me to determine your level of trust. Bearian 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Eh, sorry, but I have trouble agreeing with your self-reference as "active" when you've made less than 100 edits in each of the past three months (and, of the 43 months you've been editing, you only broke 100 edits in a single month four times; usually I'm not a fan of raw edit counting, but if you're going to say you're active, you need to actually be active). I think your answers to the questions are rather weak as well, and don't do anything to show that you've got a firm grasp of policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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.