Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jasenlee


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

Jasenlee
Final (4/6/1) ended 04:04 5 January 2006 (UTC)

– This is a self-nomination as I've been an avid Wikipedian for two years now and am completely devoted to the idea of open-source knowledge. I think I've been fair and honest in my edits while always striving to maintain the integrity of this project. Jasenlee 07:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: - I accept - Jasenlee 07:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Note: This candidate has withdrawn the nomination. Please do not add further votes or comments.''' &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And the user has done a nice job of improving the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. But use more edit summaries. --Kefalonia 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) King of All the Franks 13:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Phædriel  22:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Of the 2000+ edits almost all are minor.  There is practically no contributions to policy discussion.  No evidence of having made any substantial contributions to articles.  The answers to the questions are very vague and lacking in detail.  Very little activity on talk page. All of these make me lean toward oppose.  Convince me I'm wrong. -- Samuel Wantman 10:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Very little contribution to Wikispace or any of the talk pages (not including article talk pages). One of the primary things an admin should do is interact with other users, and just 68 user talk edits isn't enough in my book. This user could also make better use of edit summaries. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I suggest that you do some more maintenance tasks allowed to non-editors and make more contributions to the Wikipedia: space. Also, your answer to question 1 does not require admin tools. I suggest you look at some of the admin tools and get a better idea of what tasks you want to do and what areas you plan to work on. --Deathphoenix 16:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. 2000 edits, but only 105 edits since September 2005. Your involvement in Wikipedia seems rather sporadic. Also, edit summary usage is very low. While you have been around a while, I don't see anything that convinces me you really need sysop powers.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Lack of major edits and low percentage of using the summaries. PS2pcGAMER 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) oppose. Jasenlee, i feel you still need more experience working within the en.wikipedia community. continue your hard work, and try again at a later date. Kingturtle 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. I think you've probably been around "long enough", but I share some of the above concerns that you are not really familiar with the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia. Take a look again at the admin reading list; there are a lot of places on there where a non-admin like you or me can contribute behind the scenes. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * King of All the Franks 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 34% for major edits and 35% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 16:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am surprised by your answer to Q.1. How would these fall under sysop chores? --Gurubrahma 12:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. List of controversial issues and Wikiquette


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Chicago - It is my home and the article that first got me interested in Wikipedia. I've helped to guide its growth over two years with many others and I'm quite pleased with the progress.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I have and in those cases I try and see the POV of others as I think we can all learn from each other and in some cases that person is me. I work to remain calm without letting emotions affect my judgement. Ultimately my goal is a truthful NPOV article that benefits everyone and that is what I keep in mind first and foremost.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.