Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Potter


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

Jason Potter
Final (0/5/3) ended 23:23, 2006-08-02 (UTC)

– selfnom, RFA JPotter 22:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept as this, of course as I nominated myself. I am interested in becoming an administrator because I fervently believe in the project. I have been on board since very early on, 2003. While I may have only 833 edits, I believe the quality of my edits should be looked as as opposed to the number. I have done quite a bit to improving articles, although I am sure many will think I too few edits. Please take a look at my edit history going back and I think you'll see not only won't I abuse the tools, I will make good use of them to cleanup, protect and other help the project.


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) I'm sorry, Jason, but you have only 833 edits. I would like to see your edit count at roughly 2,000 before I could support. At this time, I must Oppose. Seems like you're on the right path, though. :)-- Firsfron of Ronchester 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose less than 1,000 edits, and I don't like the answer for number 1, I don't see much AFD edits and I don't see an heavy need for the tools as well. Jaranda wat's sup 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Far too inexperienced, and the answers to the first of the standard questions certainly leaves the nomination wanting. I also don't expect an essay in the nomination pitch, but something more than "selfnom" is necessary ( and I know some people will be picky that the nomination isn't accepted ). If such a nomination was unacceptable for a long-established editor (see Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist), then it is certainly unacceptable for a much less experienced nominee. Agent 86 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I misread the acceptance of the nomination because it was all in italics without the editor's name and timestamp. Agent 86 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose Not too active in Wikipedia. Been registered since 2003 and only 833 edits. -- Tu s  pm (C 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose because of lack of experience and low edit count.--Jersey Devil 23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I withdraw my nom. JPotter 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Answers to questions don't really suggest a need for admin tools, but come on, people. Editcountitis is fatal. 1ne 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral on the road to become a great wikipedian. But the little interaction with other users (User talk is 21) and the few edits gives me the feeling the user isn't quite ready yet and is best suited as an editor, for now.-- Andeh 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per 1ne - I can't agree more. May I suggest withdrawal for now, Jason? There will come a time in the future for this, I'm more than sure, but it's too soon now. Don't dispair.  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please judge the quality of my edits, not the quantity of them. Also, if I had the tools, I would probably be more bold in engaging in activities that require them, page moves, protects and what not.JPotter 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments

Username	Jason_Potter Total edits	833 Distinct pages edited	259 Average edits/page	3.216 First edit	05:44, 29 September 2003 (main)	391 Talk	293 User	25 User talk	21 Image	9 Template	8 Wikipedia	86
 * See Jason Potter's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
 * Jason Potters' edit count using Interiot's tool
 * Added at 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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:I am especially interested in the AFD process. I hate cruft of any kind on Wikipedia and vanity pages I frequently nominate for AFD. Although I characterize myself as a deletionist, I handle each afd on a case by case basis and will work to improve an article rather than delete in many cases.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:Yes, I've worked hard on Neanderthal, Human Evolution. I also participated in resolving conflict on Joe Scarborough which I felt I represented a good compromise satisfying both sides.


 * 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:No conflicts I am aware of. I try to look at things from other's points of view to come up with NPOV. Writing for the enemy is especially useful in this regard. I've found here at Wikipedia that one man's NPOV is another's POV warrioring. I try to write citing secondary sources, giving fair weight to both sides, depending on who is majority an which side is the minority, and how big a minority they are, when deciding how much relevance or space to give to a particular issue in an article. I subscribe to a couple of peer reviewed science journal and use the subscriptions to add citations to requested articles.
 * 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.