Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nouniquenames (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 25 January 2013 (→Support: +1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jason Quinn 2

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (5/1/2); Scheduled to end 3:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Jason Quinn (talk · contribs) – I've been around Wikipedia for over 7 years. I have a respectable track record, I suppose. This is my second RfA. First was in October 2007 on a whim after reading Jimbo's "not a big deal" thing but I was SNOW'd. Anyway, here I am again. I am very familiar with many editing policies and guidelines. I'm also already familiar with most of the admin-related policies and guidelines. As for questions related to polices and guidelines, let me say in general: if I'm uncertain about something, I check to see what existing policies and guidelines already have to say. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: There's very little I intend to do. Mostly I would like to be able to edit protected pages without needing to wait for time-wasting and cumbersome edit-requests. At the moment I would like the ability to start editing some javascript sources related to the WP:Reftoolbar. My editing du jour changes on roughly a monthly basis. I'm not particularly interested in doing deletion/blocking/banning work and don't see me bothering with that in the near future either. Too some extent, after seven years, I'm just getting bored with editing. It would be nice to have something new to explore.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have been leading member of the Typo Team for a number of years now and have been serving as an informal lead of that project. In my editing, I tend to act as a copyeditor and like to use cite templates for references and make WP:ORDER fixes. Strangely, I find this cathartic. I have helped cleanup cite template documentation. I tend to gravitate towards the more technical things here.
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: None that I can remember clearly. I vaguely recall two or three incidents where I stated to become frustrated by somebody. I tend to take a break from those conversations for a while to get a clearer perspective. Also, unless it's something important, I don't think it's worth getting involved in these discussions so I often just walk away.
Additional question from Master of Puppets
4. Administrators are often called upon to weigh consensus, resolve conflicts, block problematic editors, determine copyright infringements, and so on; while this is not your stated interest, would you be able to assist the Project in helping deal with the aforementioned issues? Nobody is asking you to change your entire editing focus, but I'd like some reassurance that you'll attempt to help out in areas outside of your comfort zone when possible. I'd also like to ask if you have previous experience with the XFD and speedy deletion processes, and if you've applied copyright, notability and BLP policies to editing before (and how you did so). m.o.p 03:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from Go Phightins!
5. Have you significantly attributed to any GAs, FAs, DYKs, etc.?
5b. Can you cite an example of when you collaborated with another user on an article?
A: The best most recent example is Chebyshev's inequality article, where I was working in conjunction with User:DrMicro and User:Michael Hardy to improve that article. My contribution was to make the refs of excellent quality through the use of cite templates. There are a lot of refs to that article so this was a ton of work. My work tends to be wiki-gnome in nature and I tend not to do GA, FA, DYK type work. I have however put some effort into trying to get the Type O Negative article up to GA status, which it hasn't yet. The glory work of FA and GA is just not something that I tend to do. I'd much rather improve source code or charts or templates. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Would you opt-in to edit statistics on TParis's tool please? Go Phightins! 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support
  1. I've only looked quickly through this page, your user page, your talk page, and talk archives, but everything is very impressive so far and I'm happy to support for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support-- I was unfamiliar with this user. But when I saw this user's contributions and count I have no problem. Nothing to oppose.--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support I doubt that this will pass, but I don't believe the candidate would abuse the tools. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Different people mean different things by "moral support"; many mean "not really a support", so ... I'm left wondering. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not very clear on why you don't think this will pass. Are you referring to the non-standard Q1? Or is it something else? Legoktm (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's something I see said when one is trying to be encouraging during a RfA that will likely fail. To be clear, I do support Jason, but I don't think this will pass. The reason I doubt it will pass is that Jason didn't come across (at least to me) as very familiar with this process. His answer to Q1 probably won't do him any favors. Even though I don't see it as problematic, I'm guessing others will. Given the environment around here, I don't think a candidate who sort of comes across as unprepared has a very good chance. I hope that I can be proven wrong. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why not? I don't see any reason that promoting this user would be harmful to the project. Not everyone can be a perfect admin candidate, with N many edits to AFD, RFPP, etc. But here we have someone who is trusted, has been here for a while, and generally knows what's going on. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. (X! · talk)  · @209  ·  04:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems to meet my requirements, and bonus props for apparent honesty in the unusual Q1 answer. --Nouniquenames 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Tentative oppose- You're getting bored with regular editing tools, so you want the admin tool kit? Sorry, doesn't sound to me like your motives are in the right place. Still open to a change in vote if answers to questions are outstanding, but I have a hard time envisioning myself supporting an RfA with that as the reason for running. I should note that I am still looking into his other contributions and my vote is not a reflection on them. Go Phightins! 03:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I added that comment as an afterthought. I almost deleted it because I was aware it might cause trouble. I left it in because it shouldn't cause trouble and it's somewhat true and I think I was also curious if people would jump on it despite a long and good record. The comment is innocent. That's hope that's all that needs to be said on the matter. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect you for expressing your opinion in an honest manner; I'm just concerned that, as was pointed out below by someone, if we have someone who's bored with Wikipedia operating the administrator tools, that might not be a good thing necessarily. I still have not yet fully decided how I'll vote as I'm still researching (and dozing off at the keyboard) some of your contributions, but as of now, I unfortunately have to oppose your candidacy. Go Phightins! 04:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, I'm almost tempted to oppose solely on all these typos you're making, Jason... ;) m.o.p 04:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral pending further responses. You state in your second response that "... after seven years, I'm just getting bored with editing. It would be nice to have something new to explore." I'm a bit concerned (and I'm sure other editors may share my concern) that an editor who is 'bored' with editing would like to be granted sysop rights just to dull the boredom - the last thing we need is another bored administrator. m.o.p 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what your exact concerns are but if it's that I'll run amuck to "dull" boredom, you needn't worry. Something that is boring to me just ends up receiving less of my attention. It's a normal human emotional response so it ought not be held against me. Besides, how can I remain bored when there's such cute sheep on user pages to be seen? ;-) Jason Quinn (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not concerned you'll run amok - it's just that being a sysop can sometimes be mentally tasking, and some decisions you make as sysop can be disastrous if you're not paying them full attention. And thank you! The sheep is quite cute. :) m.o.p 04:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm not too keen on the user's answer to Q1, saying he is getting bored of editing. However, I do not see anything that will make me support or oppose now. I will have to look more into the user's contributions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jason_Quinn_2&oldid=534771892"