Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn 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.

Jason Quinn 2[edit]

Final (138/29/16); ended 04:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC) - A consensus has been shown that the candidate can be trusted with access to the tools, and frequency of use was not considered an impediment to access. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

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[edit]

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: Yes, I am willing. Third-party opinions from non-involved parties can bring needed level-headedness and clarity to an issue or dispute. That can be very valuable when it comes to the things you state. It's not a matter of a "comfort zone"... it's more a matter of a "I'd rather be doing other things zone". Mostly I want the admin tools to do development-related stuff related to WP:Reftoolbar. As for copyright, despite being a huge supporter of free content and things like FOSS software, I am a staunch supporter of intellectual property and therefore copyright protection. I have gotten non-free media removed Commons and deleted copyright violations from Wikipedia text (it's easy to spot copy-pasta from a mile-away after all). I have participated in AfD before. I know quite well when and how to invoke policy like WP:NOTE and WP:BLP. I've used XfD and Speedy a number of times in the past (at one point I was systematically editing categories and in categories on musicians and actors you can find tons of articles that are basically self-promotion by aspiring stars). It's been a while since I've been doing that work though.
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]
Additional question from Callanecc
6. Given that you've implied that you don't really have a desire to use the tools, why do you want to be an administrator?
A: The main reason for my RfA is to do some cleanup of code related to the WP:Reftoolbar. Doing this as a non-admin is totally impractical and would be less enjoyable than going to the dentist. Why do I want to be an admin? I suppose it's the same reason I want to be an editor: to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. It just so happens that the way I can best contribute my skills would require some admin abilities on occasion. "Desire" is kind of a sexy word that I wouldn't really associate with admin tools. Eventually I might start to want to move into other areas but maybe not. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Hahc21
7. As an administrator, you will have to deal, one way or another, with blocks. I understand that although some admins never use the blocking buttons, they have to thoroughly understand the blocking policy notwithstanding. So, which is, for you, the spirit of the blocking policy?
A: I'm not sure how vague or detailed to answer your question. The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Blocking prevents a person from editing so an editor must be damaging to the context or community to justify it. I guess the spirit of blocks is to guard the encyclopedia.
8. You have shown interest in working with protected pages. When should a page be protected and when not to? When should pending changes be applied to a page?
A: A page ought to be protected for a variety of reasons and different reasons imply different types of protection (e.g., full vs semi). Full protection, for example, should be applied to pages that have the potential to cause serious disruption if mis-editted. For example, templates and scripts used on thousands of pages are often fully protected. Full protection can also be used to intervene during an edit war. Semi-protection would be a good choice if there's persistent IP editors causing disruption, for example, as is sometimes the case with certain BLP articles. Protection should, of course, absolutely not be used as a way to keep my own work on articles.
Additional questions from MJ94

9. Why do you think you'll make a good administrator?

A: I love the Wikipedia and have its betterment at heart. I will improve things where and how I can. I can be trusted to voice an opinion guided by policy but also that heeds common sense. I am a reasonable person who knows the boundaries of what is proper action. I am not afraid to consult with others.

10. Is there an area, as an administrator, that you will not work in? If so, where and why not?

A: There's no area that I am opposed to working in but there are areas that I am not likely to work in. For instance, I am not very much interested in doing blocking/banning etc as a routine part of my editing. Why? Because I think I would find it unenjoyable. (I edit Wikipedia in my spare time to relax, after all. I know the "mop" is the symbol of the admin but I'll be best mopping the technical corners.) I probably won't end up doing much related to AfD either for the same reasons, I just wouldn't enjoy it much. I am more likely to do this occasionally than the former though.
Additional questions from Addshore

11. Have you ever tagged any articles for CSD or AFD? Could you provide me with some examples?

A: Yes. Quite a few times. As for examples, I have found about half a dozen instances that were declined for various reasons. List of Archie Comics imprint publictions and Refrences to synesthesia in fiction were redirects which have an implausible spelling errors but were declined because they weren't created recently enough. Choice (group) was declined because it was deemed notable. It later become a just redirect. I think my point could have been elaborated further but I digressed. As for those that were accepted (which I would think would be dozens), I'm actually temporarily stumped on how I can find them. (You've made me feel like I should know how to do this but I don't. :-/ ) I don't recall off the top of my head any examples and I don't think they would or should show my edit history. I'm afraid you've stumped me on a technical issue of finding out what they were. hmmmm.
Ironically, this is one of the things that requires the admin tools, at least for the prods and the speedys (the AfDs will be shown on your contributions page because the AfD discussion page that is created remains. I'm looking at the candidate's Deleted Contributions page, and I see deleted prods on Pirate Soundsystem, Corinna Newton Downes, Trevor Friedric, Lummox (band) ,ColmanBlue The Crazy Squeeze, Katharina Sophia Schultz and deleted prods since recreated by others at Equatorial room, Lower Dens; I see speedies on GT-S3500, Joey Pixler Ttyl (Internet Girls novel), and many speedies on redirects and technical reasons. [(for convenience, some AfDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Lam Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Coco. What I do not see is any article the candidate has created that has ever been deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also have some (kind of) redundant stats posted in the discussion. DGG, regarding deleted articles, I found Florida death metal as an article created by Jason that was subsequently deleted. Airplaneman ✈ 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep the record straight, it was a prod in 2006 and it had been on line for two years... Peridon (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12. Have you ever requested protection of an article or requested an edit to a protected article?

A: Yes. For example, I requested semi-protection of the Tuba article a few times. It got protected for a period of one-month once. After having watched that article for years and getting annoyed by seeing so many reverts in my watchlist, I also requested permanent semi-protection but it was declined. I also started a discussion at the Ronnie Coleman article that apparently got it a long term semi-protection.

13. Please give me one example of when each of the following admin tools should not be used. Blocking, Page protection, Rollback

A: One way blocking should not be used to silence somebody's opinion: which includes when you are on the other side of the discussion or because the other editor is unpleasant in tone. One way rollback should not be used to rollback a series of edits by an editor to remove only some of the their edits.
Additional question from Kurtis

14. In your answer to question #1, you state that you would "like to be able to edit protected pages without needing to wait for time-wasting and cumbersome edit-requests." As someone who has himself dealt with fully protected articles and made an edit request (quite recently, in fact), I can definitely empathize with your frustration. Your subsequent answers (particularly the one to question #8) have demonstrated an overall solid understanding of the protection policy. Is it therefore safe for me to assume that you do not intend to make major changes (i.e. complete overhauls, adding/removing sections, etc) to fully protected pages prior to discussing them on the article's talk page?

A: Hi, Kurtis. That is a valid assumption. I do not intend to make any big changes or complete overhauls. In fact, I will likely be overly cautious at worst and will likely look to changes that simply the logic but are functionally equivalent. I do not intend to dive-in with the tools with reckless abandon and will proceed in a very cautious fashion.
Optional question from jc37

15. - Ok, I've read over everything here. Let me ask this: There is a tool not currently in use on en.wikipedia called editprotected. It generally allows the person with it to edit most protected pages (with some technical exceptions). If this was available to you, would you request that instead of adminship? If that ability was in a package of fewer tools (such as listed here) would you request that instead of adminship? Why or why not? - jc37 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: If editprotected were available, I would have applied for it instead of adminship because it seems to fit my case fairly well. I view "partial" abilities granted to select users upon request (like "rollback") as a very good idea in general. So, yes, editprotected would have suited my purposes well. On the other hand, Wikipedia severely needs more admins. Having a user (even if currently not so interested in some areas) given the ability to participate in those areas means that there's an increased chance of them actually participating in the future. If I'm trustworthy, seems like a good idea to have me as a potential volunteer than unable to participate.



General comments[edit]

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]

Yes, please opt-in by creating User:Jason Quinn/EditCounterOptIn.js so that we can see monthly stats and top articles edited stats. I noticed that you only created the user talk page, but you are supposed to create the actual user page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Regarding Question 11 – here are some cursory stats on Jason's deletion requests (excluding U1 and U2 as well as many G6 and R3 requests) that have shown up in the log of his 800-odd deleted edits. The majority of the taggings are simply maintenance tasks:
  • CSD tags:
Support[edit]
  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]
    I'd like admins to learn more about sourcing, but so far, I'm comfortable staying here with the supporters. tweaked - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 29 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]
    Though if everyone answered in the same way to question 1, would there be any point in asking it at all..? Better to be honest than want a mop so bad you lie to get it... ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:19, 26 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]
  6. I like his honesty, and he is clearly a reliable user, so I think we can trust him with the tools. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I really don't see why not. --Rschen7754 04:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think you're doing quite well and would be a good administrator even if, as per your own admission, you might not be among the most active ones. We shouldn't oppose for your being honest. —Soap— 05:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Don't see any evidence that tools will be misused. The candidate surely has enough experience and judgment to know when tool use is appropriate. —Kusma (t·c) 10:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. - filelakeshoe 12:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I don't admin a whole lot either - and a lot of admins stop by infrequently at best. So when a candidate for adminship says he's not gonna do a whole lot as admin, honestly that doesn't bother me in the slightest. There is no evidence in their edits or their statements here that suggest anything other than a reasonable editor. I see nothing here that would disqualify this editor - so I have to support. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Anybody sweeping the floors at a Temple of Pafnuty deserves the mop. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support in large part because it would be helpful to see some additional love bestowed on RefToolbar (which I've used quite a bit), and because I trust this editor to do no harm. (Additionally? Many of the opposes express concern that the editor would make little use of the tools. Yet, in my experience, the community has often expressed a concern about the problems of having a smaller set of "full-time admins," putatively detached from the concerns of writing and editing an encyclopedia. The alternative to that model is a larger set of "part-time admins", and in many ways, I think there's a strong argument that that's the way we should be trending.) Finally, I do share some of the concerns expressed by Mephistophelian, and hope, which ever way this goes, that the candidate will take those concerns seriously. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. (Weak) Support Net positive, won't break the encyclopedia. Not a politician; the candidate's answers obviously haven't been coached. No real experience in conflict situations, but that's not where they plan to work anyway. Miniapolis 16:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. If he has been editing for over 7 years, then there is no reason to be concerned about him being given access the the tools. Vao Tv1 (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per WP:NONEED — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: Per Ultra. —  dain- talk   16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Seems like a good editor. I think most of the opposes are reading to deeply into the responses looking for a reason to oppose rather than a reason to Support. Kumioko (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Sure, why not. A refreshingly honest request; for me it's much easier to trust a long-term contributor than someone who has spent the last few months gathering NACs specifically to pass an RfA Jebus989✰ 21:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - he doesn't want to block anyone, delete anything or protect anything. He just wants to get on with editing slightly more efficiently. Can't see the problem with this as long as he is trustworthy, and he looks like he is. Not convinced by opposes who think that being an admin needs to be "serious". It's people taking it seriously that causes half the drama. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 00:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Man after my own heart: "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." Of course, that's exactly NOT what the Administrative clique wants to hear, particularly from someone with the temerity to self-nominate in this hallowed process. Kudos to you, my friend. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - How many times Jason chooses to use the tools doesn't really matter, its just that whenever he does use them that he does so properly, which I believe he will do so. Legoktm (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I see no reason to believe he would misuse the tools, and even an infrequent use is a net positive. —Darkwind (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support. This application is very similar to the basis on which I successfully ran for adminstration in 2007. The reasons why Jason may choose to use the tools are completely irrelevant. The only criterion is that he uses them well. There is nothing that gives me doubt that he will; his user page is exemplary and he appears to be a very level-headed editor. Also, as MSGJ points out, WP:NONEED explicitly refutes several of the oppose reasons given below. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Moral Support as per AutomaticStrikeout, this editor may be have opposing wills but I also see that this user will not abuse helpful admin tools. Mediran (t • c) 10:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Seems like good editor, I feel that candidate gets too much flak for giving honest answer to Q1 instead of going full politician. This RfA probably won't pass though.--Staberinde (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Although you may not be the best candidate, I admire your candor and I really think you would be a good administrator. Should this attempt not succeed, I would encourage you to come back in a year and try again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. It appears that if this RfA is successful (I almost wrote "if the candidate is promoted," but that's not really the right way to think about these things), the candidate will never win "Most active administrator of the year"—but that is not necessarily the best way to evaluate. Although a slightly more ambitious adminship agenda would not have gone amiss, I appreciate the candidate's candor, and the answer to question 6 convinces me that the RfA has been filed for reasonable reasons. As such, I can support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Demonstrated "needs the tools", per the RefToolbar. As for the activity, even if he doesn't try to tackle a backlog, he's going to be doing something. And something helps the backlog more than the nothing of not appointing an admin. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Long term editor with obvious commitment to the project so I don't see why not. I don't really understand the opposes citing his response to question 1. On the one hand, we don't seem to like editors who work solely toward adminship and on the other hand we lambast editors who are willing to become admins without any specific agenda in mind. I, for one, will always prefer an editor who hasn't really thought about being an admin before but has demonstrated a strong commitment to the project. Being an admin should be a sideshow to editing on Wikipedia, not the main event. --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Per the whole net positive stuff. Thanks for volunteering, Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Responsible editor with plenty of experience. I see little risk in giving Jason Quinn a few extra buttons. I'm puzzled by the opposes as it seemed to me that "no need for tools" had recently been going out of style as a reason to oppose an RfA. Now it's making a comeback as "being bored is not a good reason for wanting the tools" but it seems obvious to me that this is JQ's way of saying "I'd like to explore other ways of helping out". I would suggest that everyone who's worked on Wikipedia for more than two or three years (and that includes many of the opposes below) knows that feeling. You join Wikipedia to work on articles about 19th-century entomologists, you get a little jaded and you start coordinating WikiProject Insects. That slowly becomes less interesting so you switch gears and start doing some anti-vandalism work but that's only interesting and challenging for a few months and you decide that your time would be better spent in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Tanzanian culture. I suspect that "I'm kinda bored and am looking for new challenges" is actually a very typical motivation in RfA candidates. People are also opposing because of Q1's "there's very little I intend to do" but again, if giving JQ the tools means 5 fewer edit-requests a year, then this is a net positive. Pichpich (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Would be a net plus for Wikipedia, trusted user. SpencerT♦C 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support If adminship was a permanent full-time job, I wouldn't be keen on supporting. It isn't. It's a sign of trust and a few extra buttons. If he uses them to do some tasks that I don't understand but which need these buttons, well enough. It's not costing the project anything. He's been here long enough to have a fair idea of what's what, and I can't see him going hell for leather blocking people for their first reversion. I didn't even know that that thing was called the 'RefToolbar'. Not my area of working. (Don't even use it much except for the 'nowiki' thing...) Peridon (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per Newyorkbrad. He genuinely wants to help by working on something that unfortunately needs edit full protected permissions that would help the community. He may have been a little too candid with answer one and maybe could have written it a little differently while conveying the same intent, but I can't see holding the request for not wanting to be among the most active of admins. Also, this wouldn't be the first time we gave the sysops for performing technical changes to protected pages or templates. Calmer Waters 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support because like others have said, there is no reason to believe that the tools will be misused. I think Pichpich responds to the oppositions over "boredom" very well and hope that the closing bureaucrat will not weigh these oppositions too much. I do think that Mephistophelian brings up a good case about the quality of Jason Quinn's contributions and hope that Jason will review the points made if he is to deal with sourcing issues on an admin level. Otherwise, the mop should be No Big Deal. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support and props to you, mate. I too would find admin tools quite handy if I had them, and would probably contribute a little to administrative chores, but I don't see myself ever passing a nom for the same reason yours is probably going to be a narrow miss. ResMar 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support See no reason to believe the tools will be misused. - Shudde talk 01:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support with no reservation. Jason's editing history shows broad experience. Looks like he's always civil. He plans to spend time cleaning up code that requires adminship to edit. What I see in his history shows Jason will fix some code; then he'll look for another way to contribute. Perhaps he'll wander over to WP:Admin backlog. Jason is exactly what is expected of an admin. Perhaps not the perfect balance of experience and skill some demand but more than good enough. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Based on his answers to the questions, I have little doubt that Jason Quinn will use the admin toolset responsibly and would be beneficial in making necessary fixes to fully protected pages. The sourcing issues are legitemate, but in my opinion somewhat minor and not a disqualification from acquiring the sysop flag. Kurtis (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Jason is a longterm editor who has done a lot for this project, he has a clean blocklog and his deleted edits don't trouble me either. The views he expresses on his userpage are mostly ones I share, but even where we disagree such as over signatures his views show an understanding of the community and that he has the right attitude to be an administrator. OK there is a touch of naivety about his attitude to accounts that look like actual names, (hint: not every account that looks like a real name is in the name of the account holder) but I'm sure he would do well as an admin. As for the opposes, we need admins to do many things, including editing protected pages. ϢereSpielChequers 10:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per rogerd. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I have concerns with question one, but that's no reason to oppose.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Nobody "needs" adminship, and infrequent activity ≠ detrimental. The editor's amount of time served on Wikipedia means he can be trusted with the tools. He stated his intention, to edit within the protection field, and has thorough knowledge of protection policy (see Q8). Although I don't think this will pass, I am leaving my support. Good luck James! Till 15:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support without reservation. Any incremental administrative contributions are still a benefit, and more contributions by level-headed editors such as this candidate should be welcome. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Per Newyorkbrad and WereSpielChequers. NW (Talk) 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Q1 is probably the worst answer I've seen, but I have a good gut feeling. Wizardman 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per RegentsPark and WereSpielChequers. Good luck. Salih (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support What I see here is a candidate that is very independent, fairly blunt, knows when to walk away and when to run. That he doesn't have major plans for the tools doesn't disturb me. Most of us end up doing different things than we expected once we get the bit. Being a little rough around the edges doesn't deter me either. While I don't think he will be the most active admin in mediation or putting out fires (skills I usually favor at RfA), I think he will be a net positive and having the tools may encourage him to work in new areas over time. Real honesty when answering questions at RfA often gets you into trouble, or at least a pile of opposers, but I find it refreshing and a reason to trust you with the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per Wizardman. I think that the answer to question 1 is one of the most sublime examples of "foot in mouth" syndrome I have ever seen. But still... I have a good impression of this editor and don't see any reason to believe that they would misuse the tools. Trusilver 19:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Per most above (including Dennis). — ΛΧΣ21 19:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Honesty is refreshing. Besides, he seems trustworthy with the tools.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Basically, I trust you. That's why I ended up here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Dennis really summed up what I was going to say here, so I suppose I'll keep this rather short. I believe you have the personality of a good admin. I really admire the truth and honesty you've shown here. I don't believe there's ever a need for the tools, so the fact that you aren't quite sure where or when you'll use them doesn't bother me. I don't believe anyone is perfect and I don't think adminship is perfection or that anyone in an administrator position should be looked up to as such. Your work here is very respectable and I see you gaining the tools as a net positive for all. MJ94 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - you seem like a decent guy. Simone 21:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. What does Jimbo have to say on the issue? He decided to "make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops". Anyone who's been active here for nine years with no problems can be trusted, and everyone who can be trusted should be an admin unless they don't want to. In particular, I don't understand why people simultaneously oppose for "bored" and for "I'm just going to edit protected pages" — if you're bored, you'll probably find yourself fulfilling lots of other admin tasks as well. Since it's just a technical matter that sysop powers aren't given to everyone, you should have them if you qualify. Finally, it's not as if we have a limited number of admins, so there's nothing wrong with giving tools to a trustworthy person who will use them only rarely, and every protected page that Jason edits is one less task for the rest of the admins to worry about. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. 7+ years, nearly 20k edits, doesn't appear to have broken the wiki, and no one has raised any conduct issues or skulduggery. Says he won't do much with the tools, so am not terribly concerned whether he is up on the latest alphabet soup of policies or criteria, seems to have a head on his shoulders in discussion. The concern raised in the opposes I find unpersuasive - I flipped through a few of the articles raised as concerning and see embryonic articles that could be made better, but not concerning. Martinp (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I have never actually had any interaction with Jason but after looking at his contributions, intentions and answers to questions I feel that having the admin flag would benefit the project. He is honest, as shown in question 1, has far more content writing under his belt than I did when I flaged and nothing shows that he would missuse the tools. His intentions are all good and nodoubt he would help out with current admin team. I hope the closing crat reads all of the supports and opposes carfully as there are some really 'special' ones out there which seem to have very little, if any reasoning behind them. As Filelakeshoe said in a comment "adminship wasn't a big deal" and in years past anyone would be handed the flag as long as their intentions were good and they had a little evidence of that. Jason has both good intentions and a massive history to back it up. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, established user who's proven them-self a "net positive" by their contributions. Most importantly, the user has demonstrated trustworthiness sufficiently enough that I trust their good intentions and am not concerned by anything lacking in clue.—My76Strat (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting to do much admin work - even one task a year is one task a year that someone else doesn't have to do. And I think people are taking the "bored" thing rather too seriously - it's just a light-hearted comment. Anyway, I'm here in the support camp essentially because Jason Quinn is someone I trust with the tools, based on his long term service and clearly good work. (As an aside, I think the ability to edit protected pages, especially templates that are protected because of their ubiquity and/or complexity, is an obvious case for unbundling - it's an "expert" action, not an "admin" action, and when they are edited, admins just do what the experts tell them.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. A trustworthy and respected editor should not face so much flak for seeking a couple of extra buttons, with which I have faith they will do no harm and more than no good. Happy‑melon 13:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. A candidate who self-noms (instead of for instance collecting those silly co-noms from high-prestige users, as if adminship was some snobbish country club) always gets extra points from me. And when they also reply frankly to the questions instead of doing an opportunistic balancing act in order to offend absolutely nobody — I love it. We need admins with some self-respect. Agree heartily with Boing! and with WP:NONEED that there's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting to do much admin work. Bishonen | talk 13:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  66. Support. - been here seven years...I find myself that page protection and issues surrounding it are admin-related activities I do the most, so I fully understand where you're coming from. Better than even chance of being a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, strong contribution history, and I agree with the WP:NONEED arguments that it doesn't matter whether or not he plans on doing a whole bunch of admin work. CaSJer (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support' Good answers to questions 1 and 3!! No reason to think he will abuse the tools. Garion96 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. If Jason Quinn had refrained from the "bored" comment and reworded the part about his lack of interest in blocks and deletions to say that they'd be areas of adminship he'd "move into at a later date", this RfA would be well on its way to success. The amount of "no need" opposes is surprising, especially given how we've never had a shortage of mops to give out and how much complaining there is at the declining number of admins. Jason Quinn has been around for close to decade, has had a relatively stable edit rate for the past several years and his last RfA was over five years ago; I think he'd be a safe person to have as an administrator. If he rarely uses the tools, but always uses them to help and never generates drama, he'll be a net positive. Acalamari 14:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. I hardly ever comment in RFAs anymore, but this meets my participation criteria: (a) seems to be close, (b) seems to be headed toward making a mistake. Here we have a level-headed, experienced person with clue, who doesn't appear to plan on blocking anyone, nor use adminship as a way to win arguments. Pretty much everyone who meets these criteria should be given adminship. Although I agree in general with WP:NONEED, it doesn't even apply in this case: he's been clear about at least one area he "needs" the tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. An experienced user who's unlikely to cause any harm as an admin. I think his answer to Q1 merely displays a lack of familiarity with the RfA process, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Epbr123 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support experience and any help you do will most likely be done well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. After reading through everything here, I see no valid reason not to support. Here we have someone willing to do a lot of mind-numbing, behind-the-scenes work, and we have people indicating he doesn't need the tools enough? Really? Are we going to need to create WP:DOESNTNEEDENOUGH? He clearly is going to be far more than simply a net positive, so why not give him the mop? All these people who are stating he doesn't need the mop enough are part of the problem why we don't have more people running for adminship. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support What will you find next? He did not self-nom on a full moon, so he must be a werewolf? Many are complaining about not enough admins and the problems at RFA, but still decent candidates get shot down here. Lectonar (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I see absolutely nothing that would make me think this user would not be competent using the administrator tools. There may be come issues with the candidate, sure, but in my opinion none of them affect whether or not he could competently poke those few extra buttons. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Per the rationale set out by Nihonjoe above. Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Good track record, civil, seems to know what (s)he is doing. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Editing is pretty boring most of the time. As is adminship, but if you've been able to keep yourself entertained all these years, maybe you'll enjoy it. Wikipedia is entirely a volunteer-based endeavor with no system in place to entice users to stay. If a longstanding, sane, and productive editor asks for this harmless promotion, it's the least we can do. Juliancolton (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. I understand people's concerns with Q1, but I feel these concerns were resolved in Q6 (and Q15 a little). At worst, the candidate is refreshingly honest. I'm confident they'll be a net positive with the tools. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - I dithered a bit on this, but I decided that I'd like to support. I don't think you're a stellar candidate, but you do have quite a number of contributions to diverse areas and seem knowledgeable enough about policies and guidelines. I think that wanting to edit protected pages is a viable reason to be an admin, and at least you don't seem willing to jump into things you don't understand to screw them up. :) I see no red flags about your past either, so you have my support. -- Atama頭 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support because I think he can do the job. An opinion in the oppose column (supported by other opposers), says "so if you don't intend to be busy, sorry you don't meet the job qualifications". Absolutely untrue and contrary to Wikipedia policy which clearly states admins "....are never required to use their tools". That's policy. More than half of our 1400 admins are not active so why should Jason Quinn be expected to be any different? If he carries out admin tasks only occasionally that would still be a plus for the stability of Wikipedia. I fear many people, even with Wiki's interests at heart, can't see the wood for the trees. Moriori (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First, that one phrase taken from WP:ADMIN does not mean it's contrary to policy to oppose a person who says he doesn't intend to use the tools or intends to use them very little. Second, just because we have many admins who "are not active" doesn't mean we should add more to that list. Finally, the last part about occasional use comes almost directly from WP:NONEED, which is an essay, not a policy. Editors may not be required to edit, but they don't help the project much by their mere existence. The same can be said for admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it was against policy to oppose him. I said the rationale given was against policy. The rationale is that he is not qualified because he is not intending to be busy as admin. That totally contradicts the policy which says admins are never required to use their tools. Moriori (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support If Jason performs just a handful of admin tasks, then that's a handful that another admin won't need to address. Every little helps. Stephen 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How true. I wonder how that can be bad for Wikipedia. Moriori (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Regarding the opposes over question #1, I tend to take an opposite view. I think it's refreshing to see someone who appears to have no ego to massage, and no desire to assert some perceived authority. These are exactly the types of admins that are seldom seen, who don't go searching for drama to engage in, and simply go about the project fixing things that need fixed. I sense a refreshing bit of honesty in this candidate, and I see absolutely no reason to withhold a few extra abilities simply because they have no desire to politicize something that's supposed to be a mop and not a badge and gun. This is a volunteer website, not a crime-ridden slum. (well - most of the time anyway.) — Ched :  ?  23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support- mostly because the answers to the questions make me confident in this candidate, and partly because I consider the "boredom == unworthiness" opposes below to be so wrongheaded I'm honour bound to cancel them as best I can. Reyk YO! 23:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I like Q1--honesty is a good quality for an admin to have. We have a number of admins who use the tools sparingly but uncontroversially, and I don't mind letting him join them. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Per Floquenbeam for example. This editor is just asking for a corkscrew for occasional use. It would help them improve the encyclopedia. Even if they only used it once a year, why not give it to them? Adminship is not a scarce resource or limited good. For some reason, at Wikipedia we only hand out the corkscrew in a package along with other tools. From what I've read, I am confident that this editor won't abuse the knife, saw, or scissors. In my own very biased opinion, some of the best admins here use their tools infrequently and specifically, when it helps them do what they'd be doing anyway, as editors. Looking for loads of new tasks for all of one's new tools hasn't always shown to be unproblematic. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Candidate seems sensible, and it can't hurt to have another admin, certainly the more there are the more efficiently things get done. C628 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Sensible and trustworthy. That's all I expect of an admin. We're running a bit low in that class at the moment. If he finds a good use for the tools, all the better. Hopefully, this will encourage him to get involved in tooly areas. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support per Floquenbeam, and because I actually quite like the answer to Q1. Sometimes you need variety and administrative work is one way to find something else to do. If he can be trusted with the tools - which I firmly believe he can - why not let him have them and keep him interested in the project? Win-win for Wikipedia. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support – This user can be trusted with the tools. The user has solid AfD and very good article contributions. As mentioned many times above, another admin would help (and wouldn't hurt), and only some admin work is definitely better than none. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Long term and reliable contributor, unlikely to misuse tools. Find opposes unconvincing; we have no shortage of bits, we may have a shortage of administrators.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. A welcome addition to the admin corps. Not swayed by any of the opposes. Candidate has shown he is trustworthy and genuinely wants to improve Wikipedia, and if the admin toolset reinvigorates his desire to do that, all the better. Also per Ched above. -- Ϫ 07:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per Floquenbeam and Ched. I trust an admin who is not eager to act, but wants to do what is necessary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Ched's argument is convincing. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. I can't see any reason he would misuse the tools. Even if he only uses the tools properly once, it's still a benefit to the project. Ishdarian 13:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. As an administrator, Jason may find areas he wants to participate it—or not. It doesn't really matter. I said in my RfA that I was going to help at DYK. Did I mean it at the time? Yes. Did that ever happen? Not really. Once you become an administrator, you may find that different things draw your attention. So, while it's nice to have a declared area of interest, it's not a requirement for me. He's a hard-working, long-tenured, level-headed editor: good enough for me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Per above. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support: For much the same reason as noted by Ched. There is a candor in Jason's responses I respect, even if the answer to #1 is a touch unfortunate in its wording. He knows where his strengths lie, and wants the capacity to move on to new challenges. Who among us hasn't felt that way? I have confidence that if called upon to take on the more traditional duties of an admin, he'll do so, and with care. --Drmargi (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100, per Ched. Secret account 15:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. I see nothing in my review that would indicate that you are not trustworthy enough to be granted the extra tools. How much or how little you will use the tools does not make any difference. GB fan 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. I see the answer to question two as a great indicator for a successful administrator. If anything, I see this as the strongest indicator for an enthusiastic, dedicated, and competent editor who will use the tools well. Airplaneman ✈ 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. I've read the supports and the opposes, and I find the supports more convincing. I'd have preferred that the candidate intended to be more active with the tools than it would appear from question 1, but we're all volunteers here, and any needed admin tasks that he can take care of himself instead of having to go get an admin to do saves the rest of the admin corps some work. I'd also prefer the articles he'd written be better referenced (and indeed I've opposed over unreferenced articles before) and that has kept me on the fence until now, but the unhappy idea of a candidate who's offered to help being rejected because he might not help "enough" has motivated me to put myself in the support column. 28bytes (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support It is no big deal. As with others, seeing Q. 1 was a little ... surprising ... for an RfA nomination, butis that necessarily a bad thing?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support The tools should be given out freely to content creators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I'm confident Jason will use his admin tools constructively and usefully. I have carefully reviewed the "oppose" comments and I just don't see a problem. It's common to have editors and admins cycle through different activities on Wikipedia; more importantly, it's useful to have editors and admins with the broad perspective and skills base this leads to. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Per the answer to question one and the opposes based on it. He could well easy have given a politically correct answer, but chose to give the truth instead. AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support With all due respect to the admins in the oppose and neutral sections below, I too have no problem granting admin rights to those who may intend to only use it sparingly. Plenty of current admins seem to do just that (or not at all). No harm is done to the wiki by these actions (or lack of). So barring any serious issues with cluefulness or behaviour, I see no reason not to happily support, however the candidate chooses to volunteer in the future. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I originally opposed, but have reconsidered. The project they are taking on is very admirable, and as they said, very difficult to take on without admin tools (through countless uses of {{editprotected}}). This would be very difficult and time-consuming. My original oppose was based on the fact that the user would be using the tools for him/herself, and not benefiting the community as a good admin should do. My evidence for this was that the user said they would like to edit protected pages. At first I thought this meant so they could edit without using {{editprotected}}, basically for convenience. Now I reconsider however. The user has, as I already stated above, said different, stating they would like to undertake a basically admin-only project. This I believe shows the user would make a healthy administrator worthy of helping and improving the project, and not a user simply HAT collecting. Vacation9 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. I trust this candidate with the tools. Let's face it: the answers to questions weren't constructed with a view to hat collecting or saying the right thing. Unquestionably honest, so that's something I can trust. There's enough of a track record to give confidence that no harm will be done. There's nothing wrong with an administrator who isn't eager to block people. The kind of editor who likes correcting typos is likely to be good with a mop. And let's shoot down the logic behind arguments that RfA candidates must declare that they want to be very active as admins. Option 1: fails RfA and does not become an admin. Option 2: passes RfA and makes constructive use of the tools, just not as frequently as some other admins. Really, does anyone think that Option 1 is the greater net positive for the project? I'm endorsing Option 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support No alarm bells. Level headed and experienced. Reasons for wanting the tools seem solid. I remember I mainly wanted the tools so I could do page moves myself without having to ask an admin to do it, so I understand the wanting to edit through protection. Though it is worth pointing out that admins are still restricted from editing a fully protected article unless they have consensus for their edit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support seems a solid editor, has a valid reason to want the tools, unlikely to break things. I'd urge care in using the tools in areas you don't know well, and to show care about editing protected articles per SilkTork. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support for reasons similar to Dennis Brown's. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support per my firm belief that admin tools are, first and foremost, editing tools. If someone wants to edit protected templates, and seems unlikely to screw things up, then by all means give them the tools. Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support; a trustworthy user and every sign of a smart and competent one. I'd be delighted if reftoolbar got some love, as well :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support There seems to be no likelihood that Jason will miss-use the tools given his lengthy and trouble free editing history, and good grasp of policy as demonstrated in the answers above. As such, there's no good reason that he shouldn't have access to the admin tools. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Even if JQ only uses the tools a few times for a purpose beneficial to the encyclopedia JQ should have the tools. I don't think JQ will use any of the extra buttons in a way that is detrimental to Wikipedia. GizzaTalk © 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support A cool calm customer, who looks like he can be trusted with the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  119. The opposes are deeply unconvincing, and pretty much a textbook example of the lazy stop energy ("oh look, the nom statement has something I disagree with in it, thank God I don't have to bother looking through their user's contributions before making up my mind") that forms a key part of modern RFA's problems. Plenty of clue demonstrated by the candidate, a solid contributions history weighted away from drama, and no red flags. This is not hat-collecting: it's a trustworthy editor asking for the community to help him out a bit in improving the project by granting him a few extra bits. If he reciprocates that trust by doing the odd bit of backlog reduction in addition to his significant content work, all the better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add, Jason's userspace comments demonstrate maturity and understanding of both the project and the community, though I disagree strongly with his comments on WMF and inclusiveness. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support per Floquenbeam and 28bytes. Graham87 13:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support per many of the above. Having a specific admin objective as an RFA candidate has proven almost invariably to be a waste of everyone's time. No indication that he'd misuse tools, lots of indication that the project will benefit from his having access to them. Risker (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Seems qualified for the job. I think you'll make a good admin. Inka888 15:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Excellently honest answer to Q1. Wanting to edit without waiting for edit requests is more than sufficient reason, IMO. RayTalk 20:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support and support for a "free to edit protected pages" flag as well to be created. Collect (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support He has the right desire, "to produce a high-quality encyclopedia". Can he be trusted with the tools and will he put them to good use in an area where they are needed? I think so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Plenty of experience, and I like the answer to Q1. AlexiusHoratius 00:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support I do not understand why there is even a question as to whether he can be an admin. I mean yeah, I suppose that there's always the possibility that after making useful contributions fairly regularly since March of 2004 and after having rollback since March of 2008, that having the insane, unbelievable, crushing responsibility of being an admin on the English Wikipedia (gasp) thrust on his shoulders will cause him to finally crack and try to take down everything he's worked hard to help build and maintain for the last nine years (can I stress that fact enough?). Seriously people, you are treating this like you're giving him the keys and launch codes to a nuclear missile submarine, not letting him block random 12-year-olds from writing "yolo" in an online encyclopedia. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. I don't see what the opposers are on about. They're treating the questions as an exercise in themselves rather than a reflection on future admin actions, seems to me. Chick Bowen 04:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Per Risker, no concerns. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support BO | Talk 10:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. There are some very cogent opposes from people I like and respect, but I don't agree with them. Even if this candidate is unlikely to be very active, they are in my view extremely unlikely to make any mistakes and even their little bit of admin work will be a net positive. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - Initially I was concerned about the boredom factor that some have opposed for but having thought about it more I decided that it's not really an issue. I trust this user with the tools, activity isn't really a reason for opposition. While articles without sources are the bane of my Wiki-career, it isn't a reason for me to oppose his adminship. James086Talk 14:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools or the position...MONGO 15:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  135. MZMcBride (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Handled a rough RfA with grace, and that tipped the scales for me. GaramondLethe 18:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Calm responses to hostile badgering convince me this editor has the right temperament to be an admin - although I caution him about editing protected pages. That is rarely a good idea. KillerChihuahua 23:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support I like the nothing fancy quality - just experience, with a solid and straightforward attitude.(olive (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose[edit]
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 Let'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]
Well, in the short time since my RfA started, my wife hasn't been fully appreciative of the time and focus needed for an RfA. :-) So far I've caught heat for being late to dinner, not starting cleaning the bathtub, and intending to stay up later than usual. Good thing this doesn't need publishable standard. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I now fully oppose this RfA due to lack of concentrated content creation (no GAs, FAs, DYKs, and for that matter, based on the talk page concerns, even decent quality articles are difficult to find), answer to Q1, and the lack of need for the tools (I hate when people bring up need for tools in most cases, but in this case, since there are really no suggestions of how they might be used, I'm concerned). If you're bored, there are all kinds of backlogs that need attention, Wiki-Projects that need reviving, articles that need improved, etc. Go Phightins! 13:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Lack of concentrated content creation" is an absurd reason to oppose. I'd already been working with this project for ten years before ever being involved with getting an article to GA, and I've never even touched DYK. I became an admin five years ago and nothing has changed about my approach to editing since then. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even necessarily complaining about not having a GA, FA, DYK, etc. To me, being involved in content creation beyond just stubs is important for an administrator, especially one who wants to work with references and who is willing to help with XfD and the like. Don't get me wrong, I think Jason is a fine editor and it is gnomes like him that are the backbone of the project, but I just feel that experience in building an encyclopedia is a must for a sysop candidate. Go Phightins! 16:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to neutral; that's too good an answer to #6 for me to oppose. Go Phightins! 17:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per answer to question 1. If you're bored with editing, then why should being an administrator change that?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not totally bored with editing and getting things like the WP:Reftoolbar working would be "interesting" rather than "boring". And doing that w/o admin would be tedious and rather impractical. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Adamant oppose — After glancing through your contributions, I noticed that there are significant problems with the quality of some of your articles, issues that an editor ought to identify and reconcile before requesting a promotion to become an administrator. To provide some instruction going forward, I would strongly recommend that you review the policy on verification (WP:V), and guidance on identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS), before revisiting the articles that you have created to address the various problems. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 05:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Nb. I have relocated my list of concerns to the talk page. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 08:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    I disputed this whole notion of you-made-stubs-therefore-you-would-suck-as-admin on Talk. (For everyone else who referenced Mephistophelian's argument without examining the data, I suggest they rethink that.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I'm typically fairly liberal with supporting users in RfA, but I have some concerns here. The answer to question 1 is troubling; admin tools should not be handed out because someone is "bored" with regular editing. And looking at his talk page (and related contributions), I see some problems with some of his edits that seem like violations of pretty basic principles. I'm sure the user has good intentions, but I cannot support this RfA. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose without reading much further, the answer to Q1 starts as "There's very little I intend to do" - well, admins are pretty busy at times, so if you don't intend to be busy, sorry you don't meet the job qualifications (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Whilst honesty is admirable, the response to Q1 basically reads to me like: "I'd like to have the tools to improve my experience of Wikipedia". That's in every way the wrong attitude for an admin to have. We get the tools to enable us to provide a service to the Wikipedia community, not because we want to edit things we aren't currently allowed to or because having extra buttons is more fun. If you don't plan on providing that service, there's no reason for you to have the toolset. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - sorry to hear you're getting bored of editing, but getting the admin tools is not the solution to that. GiantSnowman 11:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But also someone being bored is no reason to oppose. In my opinion an oppose on an RFA should have a more reasoned judgement than that, rather than just a judgement.. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I like the cut of your jib, but I don't see a convincing case for needing the admin tools. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Moving to neutral. — sparklism hey! 08:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But is that really a reason to oppose? As far as I can tell from the answers to the questions above this user having the admin flag would mean less work for existing admins. I feel your oppose should be in the neutral section. You have no real reason to support, but at the same time no real reason to oppose. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose ~ Jason's response to question 1 is a worry – "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" to which they respond "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" — Per that answer, I don't believe that Jason has a particular need for these tools. Admin tools are not supposed to be given out, to motivate people to edit. Motivation, should already be there. I don't believe these tools would be misused - but neither do I believe that they'll be used frequently, if at all. Jason: If this request is unsuccessful, please remember: it's no big deal - you have ~20k edits over nearly a decade, to be proud of - an impeccable record. Good luck, — MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose being bored of editing is not a reason for adminship. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 11:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per GiantSnowman. If you're bored of editing (as in, articles) there's stacks of other stuff you can do. Believe me, you could sit on a computer for 12 hours a day, every day, and still have stuff left over to do. You need to explore other things that you can do, but adminship isn't really something you apply for if you're bored. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Moving to support. ~[reply]
  8. Oppose - per Mephistophelian. WP:V and WP:RS are necessary for an admin to understand. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - I oppose self-nominated candidates on principle. Besides, the answers to the questions and his "track record" do not inspire any confidence. Kraxler (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think do not inspire any confidence is rather harsh; perhaps do not inspire any much confidence would be fairer. -- Trevj (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to contradict you Trevj, "do not inspire any confidence" is still much to euphemistic, but WP:CIVIL forbids a more appropriate wording. See the discussion on the talk page, especially the part about the WP:VANISHed editor, for more info. I suggest that Jason withdraws his candidature. Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs, fair enough. I read the talk page discussion earlier, thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Mephistophelian. That Jason was creating stubs with sourcing that isn't up to scratch as recently as September is worrying enough for me to end up here. On the other hand, I don't find the concerns about his motivation for wanting the bit to be very convincing. If someone is motivated by doing one specific admin task, they can be trusted to do it well, and they aren't likely to break the wiki, then why not let them have the bit so that they can get on with their work? Similarly, I don't find the concerns about having no need for the bit to be convincing. Per WP:NONEED, "If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose." If the candidate cleans up the articles mentioned by Mephistophelian, and no other problems come up, then I would likely support another run in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per BWilkins and others above. I think adminship should be a more serious commitment than the answer to question #1 indicates in this case. INeverCry 21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per the above. I'd like to know that the people we give adminship to are going to do serious work with them. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Stradivarius. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I don't like the idea of somebody seeking adminship because of "boredom" as he put it himself he even said "I'm not going to do much administrative things" more or less. There needs to be a reason I'm going to vote for you and I just plainly do not see it. --LemonTwinkle 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To me your oppose sounds more like it belongs in the neutral section, or at least a weak oppose. "There's very little I intend to do", does not say he is not going to do much. Also if you have to put "more or less" after a quote, then why quote it..? Do you feel Jason passing an RFA and having the admin flag would bring more to the project or would it detract from it? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am opposing this because I have had just about zero interaction with the candidate before now. Administrators are supposed to "do their job for the community" so it is his job to first off make a good first impression and that answer to question one was a really bad first impression he made on me. An analogy is to imagine a job interview where the applicant gives an answer to the question "Why do you want this job?" Something like "I want this job because I am bored with my current job." Would you give that applicant the job? In my mind until he can provide a more detailed reason for wanting adminship I don't think he should have it. --LemonTwinkle 05:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "My old job was interesting at first but after ten years there it's become a little boring and I want to explore something else. You're offering me that chance." Isn't that a pretty common thing to say at an interview? Pichpich (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose As has been said above, the answer to Question one is a killer. If you are not going to use the tools there is nbo reason for you to have them. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I find these opposes troubling - perhaps I'm all old fashioned and still have my mind in the time when adminship wasn't a big deal (I still think it shouldn't be), but I as a user with the sysop bit definitely use said bit just as often while generally editing as I do going out of my way to volunteer to do sysop chores. Even if you don't intend to help clear backlogs, having the sysop bit can be helpful, for example, in case you want to move something over a redirect, or edit a protected page... it can often just make our lives easier without having to wait around for someone else to come along and do some task for us. This counts as making use of the tools just as much as clearing CAT:CSD does. - filelakeshoe 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Anthony Bradbury & Yunshui. --Webclient101talk 18:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Having the bit to help you edit protected pages is not the purpose of adminship. GregJackP Boomer! 07:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is also not a reason to not have the admin flag... ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I disagree. GregJackP Boomer! 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some administrators spend significant time at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Would you say they misunderstand the purpose of the admin flag? Admin tools should be used to improve the project in ways that require the extra buttons. JQ intends to do just that. Pichpich (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I disagree. GregJackP Boomer! 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I think what a lot of people are saying that adminship is not a reward for what I consider your great track record, but fundamentally a desire to serve the community, outside of writing and editing. I admire all your work, but it's not a natural progression. Mkdwtalk 09:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Decent candidate but... The answer to question one didn't sit well with me; however, I have broader concerns that the candidate's knowledge in various areas of policy is not sufficient to use the full set of admin tools in an appropriate fashion. I appreciate the candidate wants to use the tools for fairly limited tasks, but I cannot support unless I feel they have the required knowledge and skill to use all the tools appropriately. Pol430 talk to me 12:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Based on his answers, I don't think Jason has enough experience or grasp of the policy that I expect of an admin. Question one is not the most problematic. I also don't see significant high-quality content creation. I'm ready to support if those areas are improved. I also hope that you take this RFA as "no big deal" should it fail. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Per Bwilkins and Anthony on the lack of interest in using the tools. Honesty is great but not if what is being admitted is not. In passing, I've never been fond of "why not" RfA supports. Also per Mephistophelian. Wikipedia does not need more stubs with either no sources or unreliable sources. I agree with Jason's point (on the talk page); I'd throw WP:N into the mix. Editors would do far better to improve bad articles than to create new bad ones.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose If you don't need admin tools, why should you be granted them? Especially if you don't plan to be very active with them; this is exactly the type of admin we don't need. I agree with Bwilkins here in that you don't need the tools if you aren't going to use them. I'd like to see quite a bit more experience in admin areas and more high quality article creation. Vacation9 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing a protected page is a use of admin tools. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, but IMO this isn't enough need as said above. If you want adminship, you should be willing to help out with admin related tasks and not just have it be beneficial for you. Adminship is about throwing your soul out the window and giving back to the community. Now maybe they would give back through the project mentioned above, but as I already said if that's the only community related task they plan to do, I don't see a reason for the tools or to support. Just because they're bored doesn't mean they should have adminship. Vacation9 12:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose After reading both sides' arguments, mostly in league with the "unnecessary powers" arguments. Sorry, though, seems like a nice guy JLDWtalk 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The candidate has no main interest in using the tools for a greater benefit but rather from the answers a personal gain with having the ability to edit protected pages and JS. If the editor showed an interest in using the tools for a benefit I would consider a support but at the moment nothing good will come out of the promotion in a large scale. In small scale sure he can edit pages and JS but the reasoning behind his request is not to benefit the project. For this I oppose. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I've never !voted based upon the nomination statement (I ignore the obvious snowies as others can and do state the necessary more usefully than I) until now . That desultory, offhand tone (bored? It shows). How it says nothing but not because its all to come further on or out of circumspection or failure of communication skills but because there is apparently nothing you want to say. I can't see any enthusiasm or desire - not even much interest - in what few and occasional tasks and responsibilities you state you may be willing to apply yourself to; nothing there beyond "suppose I might". The Q answers haven't make any positive difference to these impressions: your answer to Q9 suggests you think you deserve the adminship for your intrinsic qualities, not for what you do. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose as per BWilkins. Your answers to questions 1 and 3 concern me the most. You've stated that you intend to do very little admin work, that you're bored of the encyclopedia and you can't give any instances of when you've been involved in conflict with another editor? The admin side can be extremely busy sometimes, especially if there's not many of us online. Plus, if you're bored of the encyclopedia what's to say that once you've mastered the admin tools you won't become bored of them too? Thirdly, in an RFA you'd ideally have to show evidence of how you've coped when coming into conflict with another editor as it then shows us how you interact with others and how you would deal with conflict. I'd suggest trying again in another 6 months or so and hopefully it'll be third time lucky--5 albert square (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - BWilkins speaks for me, and I will add that the notion of someone running for admin because they are bored is just plain wrong. I suppose there is something to be said for honesty, but this is an encyclopedia, not a video game. Jusdafax 06:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. OpposeBoredom is not sufficient reason for adminship and for that reason I must oppose. Retrolord (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - Admin is not a "special" right which you get when you want. You need to do something to get this right and in my opinion you are not yet qualified yet. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does your second sentence not contradict your first? It seems to me that you are saying that adminship is not a prize, but it is. Please elaborate. Airplaneman ✈ 14:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was trying to evaluate my first sentence with some examples/statements in the second sentence but looks like everything didn't go well. Anyway, admin may (is) the prize but to get that prize you have put your special efforts on. When you can't put an extra effort to the wiki works then other wikipedians can't just support you although you are a good editor. You just don't get prize whenever you want, in the same way you don't get admin rights just because you want it. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is not a prize, and admins are not prize winners. To be awarded adminship is an honour, because the community entrusts you to serve them, to help them and to become the one selected to do the delicate tasks many users are not ready to do. Being an admin means being a servan to Wikipedia, and it is an effortless strenuous job that should not be confused with being a prince. — ΛΧΣ21 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Harold, do you mean 'strenuous' rather than 'effortless'? Mephistophelian / discuss / email 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Indeed, I have no idea why I picked the wrong word though.... Thanks Meph — ΛΧΣ21 19:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Adamantly oppose - The user indicated that they have no intention to use the tools, why then run for RfA? It seems to me like this is another case of vainglorious haberdashery. James (T • C) • 10:12am • 23:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not disputing for a moment that there may be some relevant reasons to oppose, but with this candidate's maturity and length of tenure I very much doubt that 'vainglorious haberdashery' is one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever seen a 5-year gap between RfAs characterized as hat-collecting before. 28bytes (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When I read the words "vainglorious haberdashery" it reminded me of the Apoquindo Waterfall which has become notable because Jason Quinn visited it. Kraxler (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (What may appear to be the targeting Kraxler's comments here isn't that: it's purely coincidental.) Did you see salto de Apoquindo? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. This statement is the main problem: "There's very little I intend to do." In my opinion, people who aren't going to use the tools shouldn't be admins. Minimal input in admin-related areas, although this arguably is unimportant since he isn't going to be doing anything there anyway. The mediocre content contribution doesn't help either. (By the way, there are ways to contribute that don't involve direct editing: GAN reviews, FAC reviews, RfCs, AfD !votes, RfA !votes, etc.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Every little bit counts. The small amount of work he does is work another admin doesn't have to do. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Comments 2-7 in this section all hit the nail on the head. Swarm X 05:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  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]
    Being mildly bored in the sense of "Meh, Wikipedia isn't very exciting anymore" does not imply lack of attention to detail or and carelessness. As for "disastrous" outcomes, I'm a "measure three times" type person when it's a critical step of an operation. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jason, if you were truly a "measure 3 times" kinda guy, then you would have asked an experienced person/admin to review your RFA nomination statements (or even your recent editing) to see if you or it were up to snuff - that is, indeed, "a critical step of an operation" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say the 30+ supports so far show that the majority of people feel that Jason should be given the flag and that that in a way is more than any review an admin could have given this RFA. As for "Meh, Wikipedia isn't very exciting anymore", I'm sure some of us have at some point felt that way in a Job we have had, what do you look for? Promotion? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Addshore, is it possible for you to badger oppose and neutral !voters any more than you have been? This kind of disruption is one of the reasons why we need RFA clerking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my talk page ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:22, 30 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]
  3. Neutral - The answer to Q1 kinda tickles my mind when he states that he gets bored of editing. RfA just started today, so I'll try digging deeper to see whether or not to support/oppose. ZappaOMati 04:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral (from oppose) - Does this candidate meet all my criteria for adminship? No. But an answer to #6 as thoughtful as that and the honesty shown in #1, though I don't necessarily like the answer, keep me from opposing. Go Phightins! 17:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am intrigued to know which "criteria" the candidate does not meet (as they are your criteria I have no idea)? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I really oughta spill my cognitive criteria into a subpage that I can link; primarily I'd say he doesn't have as much content creation work that I'd like to see... Go Phightins! 01:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He might not have any DYKs, GAs, or FAs (that I can see on his userpage), but 73% of his edits are in the mainspace, and ~1% are automated. You'd be hardpressed to find another candidate boasting those stats. Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Can't oppose, but as he hasn't answered my questions, I won't support yet either. Just sitting here by now. — ΛΧΣ21 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. I'm amazed at the number of opposes saying that he has no "need" for the tools. I didn't "need" the tools when I went through RfA, and I would suspect that's the same for most people who've gone through RfA. We shouldn't be supporting or opposing based on whether someone "needs" the tools but based on whether or not they are competent to use them. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To support. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral while I further analyze the candidate and see how this develops. Vacation9 05:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC) To oppose for me Vacation9 21:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Basically as per Yunshui's oppose vote. I'm sorry, but you talked yourself out of any convincing reasons for wanting the mop before this RfA even got off the ground. Come back in a few months with a more compelling self-nom, or better still a recommendation from one or two established users, and I'll do the research I usually do. I'm pretty sure you will meet my criteria metrics and then I will be happy to support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Your contributions and policy knowledge seems great from a quick view but a few things. 1.(Addressed.)You said that you are going to use the tools very little and mostly on want to edit fully protected pages and JS. With the mention that you don't want to use any of the other tools. Though I would love to see admins are focus on specific areas running for adminship just to edit fully protection pages is not one thing I would support. 2.Your knowledge of the protection and blocking policy (though you don't intent on using it) is partially a worry as your understanding is not as indepth as I would have expected from a editor for 7 years, Knowledge of the policy is not the main thing. Experience is, so I will see if I can cancel this worry. 3.In question 13 you did not answer it fully which is explaining when page protection should not be used, again joined to concern 2. If you (or someone) points out that my three concerns are invalid then I would support. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you if the fully protected pages were pages with edit conflicts or BLP problems; it's different when they are procedure-related pages protected to prevent ignorant tinkering with them. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. I would have much liked to support, particularly a fellow mathematician. The candidate is certainly experienced and trustworthy and has made significant contributions to the project. I don't think that any RfA candidate has to demonstrate any kind of a "need" for the tools. However, Mephistophelian raises valid concerns and I find the candidate's response at this RFA's talk page troubling rather than reassuring. I do not believe that any adminship candidate needs to necessarily have any FA,GA or DYK articles in their record. Different people contribute to the project in different ways, and, for example, concentrating on gnomish work is perfectly fine. But I do think that any experienced user, and most certainly any admin candidate, needs to make sure that the new content they do create is taken to some basic level of acceptability, at the very least to the level of a respectable stub. By that I mean a stub where at least the main basic facts are expressly referenced to WP:RS and notability of the topic is made apparent to a casual passer-by. After that is done, it is perfectly fine to leave the article in peace and let other users work on expanding it. But creating completely unsourced stubs and leaving them in the mainspace as easy targets for PRODding/AfDing or at least for getting slapped with ugly maintenance tags is not OK. In this case the candidate has created quite a few stubs that I would consider sub-par and below the standard of being a minimally respectable stub. E.g. the articles Crotaphion, Apoquindo Waterfall, Andreas Airfield, Wildlife of Chile, Salar de Pedernales and Sharp map remain completely unsourced even now (and even after concerns about them have been raised in this RfA). The Crotaphion article was created in April 2012, not 7-8 years ago (when unsourced articles were viewed as more acceptable). Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Experienced, trustworthy, no fear of power-hunger and potential abuse from this candidate. I would support with a re-attempt of Q1. (fortunately, you can't break the project with a single edit; nearly everything can be fixed) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. I am not impressed by his answer to questions #1 or #13. At the same time, I don't see anything else that actively impels me to oppose. I looked at some of Mephistophelian's long list of supposedly poor-quality work, but I really can't get all that worked up about stubs that still need good sources. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral (from Oppose). After pause for reflection, I realise that my reasons for opposing were a bit too WP:NONEED, and some of the answers to questions above (in particular Q6) have made me realise that the candidate deserves more than that. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral per WP:NOBIGDEAL.
    1. There doesn't seem to be any obvious evidence that the candidate (and long-time editor) would misuse the tools
    2. Sourcing issues have been acknowledged by the candidate—demonstrating personal perfection in such issues doesn't seem to be a necessary requirement, in order to build that trust expected of admins
    3. The weak use case leads me to not support, but I have no objection either.
    -- Trevj (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral (moved from oppose). Given that the candidate has received support from many Wikipedians who I respect, despite them being aware of the sourcing issues which I opposed over, I thought that I should take the time to re-evaluate my position. So I went through and took a detailed look at all of the candidate's article creations from the past year and reviewed their sourcing to make sure that I wasn't opposing unnecessarily. Here is what I found:
    • Totally Hidden Video (11 September 2012) - this article was an unreferenced stub that had been deleted, but Jason has sourced it well and recreated it. A very competent stub/start-class article.
    • Seneca Caverns (West Virginia) (5 September 2012) - a microstub with a link to the Caverns' official site. No reliable sources in evidence, but the official site probably proves its existence at least.
    • John Valentine Haidt (10 August 2012). This is a pretty good start-class article, created as part of the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Masterpiece Museum edit-a-thon, although I'm not sure about how well the Smithsonian American Art Museum visitor pamphlet fares in relation to WP:RS.
    • The Subsiding of the Waters of the Deluge (10 August 2012) - a very nice start-class article. No qualms here.
    • Bobby May (28 June 2012) - all three references are to juggling.org, which at first glance doesn't look like a reliable source, though I would be happy to be proven wrong.
    • Decorative folding (26 June 2012) - No references, just some further reading links. The content all seems fairly obvious stuff, though.
    • Crotaphion (26 June 2012) - this anatomical stub needs a source that passes WP:MEDRS, but is unreferenced.
    • The Stranger Wore a Gun (13 February 2012) - the only reference is to IMDB, a self-published source.
    • Sangaree (film) (13 February 2012) - another film stub with the only reference being IMDB.
    • Fort Ti (13 February 2012) - a third film stub with the only reference being IMDB.
    From these it seems that the candidate is perfectly capable of sourcing articles well, but for whatever reason does not choose to do this all the time when creating stubs. I still find the less-well-sourced stubs to be worrying, but I think that opposing over this may be too harsh when the candidate has demonstrated that he can do good sourcing when it counts. Hence I'm moving to neutral. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have supported candidates in the past for having no admin experience or little interest in admin areas. In my opinion, the tools are cheap and should be given out freely. I won't go back on my previous statements on this matter and change my mind now to oppose this candidate for it. I believe that we should have so many admins, that getting and removing the bits is as uncontroversial as getting and removing rollback. However, the candidates that I supported before weren't bored and looking for some new 'thing' to be different for them either. I understand boredom, I'm bored too. But I was enthusiastic when applying for the tools and had imagined a TParis who closed AFDs and CSDs for years to come. Unfortunately that didn't happen, but I gave Wikipedia 6 months of it before I slowed down. I can't support a candidate going in being this disillusioned to the project (not meant to be offensive). So I won't support, but I won't oppose.--v/r - TP 20:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. First off, congratulations on salvaging this RfA. I hope I haven't spoken too soon. You seem like a valuable and reasonably active contributor. However, I am reluctant to throw my support behind a borderline candidate who does not offer recall. Have you considered this? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. OpposeNeutral - I'm particularly concerned that he wants to work primarily in editing protected pages, but I can only see requests for protection on 5 pages. That doesn't provide adequate evidence of not just understanding when to protect a page, but being pro-active in doing so. His problems with working on WP:REFTOOLS is a valid concern, but one I'd prefer to solve with a different set of permissions - indeed, Jason himself has suggested he would prefer this. The guy's kept his nose clean and stayed out of trouble, and long may he continue to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity (if needed), the candidate wants to edit already protected pages, not work at RPP Jebus989✰ 13:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my concern stems from my experience that because the admin flag is "all or nothing", it's possible to edit a fully protected article without realising it, which can raise the ire of other editors. Maybe unlikely to happen, but if it does, he needs to be able to understand enough policy to get out of it.(To clarify things here, I don't have the bit on this wiki, but I do on another one) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral - I think this user would be a good admin, but it seems he only wants to be an admin just because he get's bored and it seems he doesn't want to alot of Admin jobs anyways JayJayWhat did I do? 00:08, 1 February 2013 (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/Jason_Quinn_2&oldid=1091631661"