Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Journalist (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Journalist

Final (80/1/1) ended 19:05 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Journalist (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. Very courteous, contientious editor. I am a member of the welcoming committee, Esperanza, WikiProject Kindness Campaign, WikiProject Cricket, and Im also an advocate. I vote frequently on AFDs and RFAs, I help out in the tagging image section, and participate in many discussions. I also patrol the recent changes section on a daily basis, reverting vandalism, warning unscrupulous editors (who have vandalised my userpage over 20 times) and welcoming new users; many of them have mistook me for an Administrator.I have over 3300 edits: 1360 in article namespace, 1180 in user-talk namespace.

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept. Thank you Journalist.

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

Support

  1. Support This user has great judgement. Type O Spud 19:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support I wish I had known you wanted to run. I would have nominated you. Acetic'Acid 20:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support! I thought he was promoted last month... Let's give this great editor the mop now! Owen× ☎ 20:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong support - No question. I'm glad to have him on my list of "Wikipedians I hold in high regard"!!! --Celestianpower hab 20:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Yes, definitely. Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support KHM03 20:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support I guess. But you owe me a coke. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Could have sworn you made it last time. Ral315 21:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Kirill Lokshin 21:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Extreme Phroziac support! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Journalist has done excellent work since his last RfA. I've nothing left to do except support him. Jaxl | talk 22:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support, I see him all the time at RfA and AfD working to make wikipedia a better place. -GregAsche (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, I think he has shown himself to be trustworthy. Rje 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Normally see you around alot Good Editor --Aranda56 00:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Seen around a lot, no probs. Alf melmac 00:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, although I think your sig is a little on the garish side. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, but please fix your sig. The linebreak it forces is intensely annoying as it disrupts the flow of any discussion it appears in. -Splashtalk 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, definitely admin material, but I also hate the space-wasting, garish signature.-gadfium 02:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, SqueakBox 03:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. DDerby(talk) 05:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support I was one of the only four original supporters - so I'll support again since it seems you've only improved since last time. My only criticism is that the your wikipedia namespace edits are mostly limited to AfD... but then so are mine :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support User:Nichalp/sg 07:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support ..dave souza 07:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support RfA is supposed to be "no big deal". The person should simply be shown to have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart and be able to work well with others. Journalist meets these criteria -- far surpasses them and then laps them and then helps them up once they have fallen down from exhaustion. There is no reason Journalist should not get it and scads of reasons to support. Qaz 08:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support CambridgeBayWeather 09:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support... I could have sworn you were already admin... FireFox  T C E 12:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support after reading your response to question number 4. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 13:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support Stewart Adcock 13:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support — He has vastly improved since his last RFA and I think he can be trusted with sysop power.Khalif 15:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  30. Extreme BDSM support! What, he's not one already? — JIP | Talk 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support Should be a good admin - always courteous and was responsive re his sig (which I also disliked). Dlyons493 16:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support I always see this user voting on stuff and making good comments. Will make a good adminstrator.--Alhutch 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support oh my freaking jebus. How didnt i know you were running. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 18:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  34. Strong support I thought this user was already an admin. Also I know what this user has done so I support. Private Butcher 19:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support My previous comment was...Hi, Journalist. I noticed this nomination in your last edit of the Mariah Carey records page. I've got a question for you below....And the question has been well answered, so I have to say support. --OmegaWikipedia 20:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  36. SupportAfter further veiws of your edits i must say they are quite beautiful so my vote is now to support you 100%KnowledgeOfSelf 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. Excellent candidate wholly deserving of adminship.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 00:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support - gotta support a J'can! Guettarda 04:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Has demonstrated that he has the required experience. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support - have always been impressed with this person's contribution. Vizjim 10:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support for conscientious contributions. NoSeptember 12:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  42. SUPPORT, I had to support him - even though I said I was getting off the Wiki.Molotov (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support, an active editor covering many "arenas". --Bhadani 15:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. One of the friendliest Wikipedians around. Marskell 18:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. Yes, certainly --Doc (?) 20:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. Needs more picturespace edits. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. But I liked the old signature better (at least the font). -- BD2412 talk 20:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. This person would make a fair administrator. Bahn Mi 20:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support! I'd also like to say I'm glad to see so many edits in the user talk namespace. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support Surprised he wasn't already one. Amren (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support. Of course! -- Essjay · Talk 22:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Deserves the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support with extra fries We need more admins like J. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 22:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support - extremely talented writer and editor. Johntex\talk 22:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  56. Neutral. Gah! I really, really want to support, and would gladly do so with a few more WP namespace edits. Come on, someone twist my arm a bit... --Alan Au 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    *Twists Alan's arm, and mutters in low Clint Eastwoodesque monotone that the point of edit counts is to help gauge experience and maturity; once these are apparent the absolute count is not very important.* :)—encephalonεγκέφαλον 00:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    Support. Arm sufficiently twisted. --Alan Au 02:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's go. Feels guilty at having twisted such a nice fellow's arm. (Hopefully) for a good cause.*
  57. El_C 11:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support I thought he was one, he appears to be experienced and civil. --JoanneB 14:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  59. Of course. No big deal. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support good, flexible and attentive editor. feydey 01:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support MONGO 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support An excellent new sig, by the way. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 20:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  63. Neutralitytalk 00:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support. Definitely!! >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 03:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  65. Absolutely. Radiant_>|< 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  66. Excellent contributor; looks like he'll be up there on that nomination record page of mine. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support. Since this is such a close vote it may need my support to tip it over the edge. Hand Journalist a mop. Grutness...wha? 22:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  68. Piling on—I mean, support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support. I interacted little with him, but I liked what I read. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support. And they complain about my pretty question marks :) ∞Who?¿? 18:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support. Piling on as well :) An excellent fellow, Journalist has made a wide range of quality contributions to Wikipedia, and has behaved with civility and respect to all concerned. I am certain that he will make a good administrator, and it is nothing short of a miracle that he is not already one. --NicholasTurnbull 19:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  72. Dunc|☺ 20:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  73. Support, and it is with pleasure that, with my vote, yours is now the 9th most supported RfA ever! Congrats, Journalist! Shauri Yes babe? 21:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  74. Support. Of course! ≈ jossi ≈ 21:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  75. Support absolutely and without question. Hall Monitor 22:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support Wow, great work on getting so many votes! It's almost like a cult (in a good way). I've not come across Journalist personally, but all you have to do is look at his contributions to realise it's an absolute must that he become an admin'! SoLando 22:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support --Rogerd 08:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  78. Support. Need I say more...--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  79. support he is a good contributor Yuckfoo 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  80. Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support! Disclaimer: This vote is not intended to be offensive. Additionally, this vote should not be used for controlling operations at a nuclear power plant, bank, airport, or hospital. You may not sue me in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey, for any damages this vote may cause you. --Phroziac(talk) 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose.

  1. Oppose. Needs more WP namespace edits. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 4:07, 25 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Neutral

  1. Neutral this section looked a little bare :) Its not as if one more support really matters here :)  ALKIVAR™ 07:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wow, I had no idea my sig had so many enemies lol. Ok folks, I'll change it! Journalist (talk · contribs)
    • Im just trying something on here. Is this even slightly better? Journalist | huh?
      • I liked your old one alot, but your new one looks fine too. Maybe this should be moved to comments... -GregAsche (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I kinda liked my old one, but I agree, it was a bit flamboyant. It looks like Im stuck with this one; I kinda this one, though, and its not the first time someone had complained about the old one :-) Journalist | huh?
        • It's much better. All it lacks now is the time stamp. :o Acetic'Acid 03:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Very nice. To save space, you can remove the "" around your font color codes, they work just as well. And yes, per Acetic acid, don't forget the fourth tilde.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 01:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A statement

I know that its far from over, but I just want to say a very big thank you to all who have voted in my RFA. I had no idea that I would receive so much support. According to Zzyzx11's nomination record, this is already the 24th most supported RFA! Im gonna make it a duty of mine to carry out my duties with diligence and sedulousness; believe me, I wont let you guys down, and if I do something wrong, just let me know. Im determined to thank each of you individually, though Im gonna have hell with that (58+ voters), but I think Im half way through :). Again thank you all. →Journalist >>talk<<.

  • This is nitpicking, but why do you NEVER have the time of Your message after the sig? Still best for the RfA. - feydey 21:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with that. I certainly won't withdraw my support (!), but I would like it better if you'd sign with four tildes instead of three! Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the sig trouble again. Ive fixed evrything now :). →Journalist >>talk<< 23:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but I've been meaning to ask this candidate to do something about his extremely obtrusive signature. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:17, 29 September 2005 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Since I already patrol the recent changes section on a daily basis, I would continue to revert vandalism, and warn/block unprincipalled editors. I would also protect pages from vandals, and help resolve disputes and edit wars, continue to participate in, and close AFds, and be a helping hand to editors and administrators alike.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particularly proud of my edits to the Category:Parishes of Jamaica. Most of these articles there were in a very poor state; some of them were stubs, copyright vios, and dead links, and I researched the articles and developed them They are not quite finised, however. Also, Ive contributed immenslt to Celine Dion — Before,Kenneth Edmonds —Before, Tireh—Before among many others. Though its a bit unorthodoxed, Im very proud of the help and guidances Ive given to some newcomers. Ive welcomed many editors to Wikipedia, and as a result, many of them have run to me when they did not understand a policy, or when they feel that they have been mistreated.
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 been in conflict the first time I edited wikipedia. Back then, I did not fully undertand Wikipolicy. However, I accepted full responsibility for actions, and promised to do better in the future. Since then, I was in a minor conflict with an anonymous editor on Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey. I am very proud of the way that I handled the situation, and it was resolved without any arguments. In the future, I plan to accept responsibility for my actions, apologise if Im in the wrong, and try to keep calm, and attack the problem, and not the person.
4. It's been about a month since your last nomination. What makes you more qualified for the position now, as opposed to before?
A. Wow, now I'm on the spot :) At my first nomination, I did not have a comprehensive grasp of Wiki-policy (NPOV ect). In retrospect, I reliase that I was inexperienced; I had only about 1200 edits, with 700+ edits in article namespace, and a mere 12 in Wikipedia namespace etc. I was not a solid contributor to Newpages nor Recent changes, and to tell the truth, I wasnt very actively involved in community discussions. All those have changed now. Thanks to the advice of the opposers of my last nomination, I have become more familiar with the Wikiy guidelines. As already stated, I patrol recent changes and newpages daily, I use edit summaries 99.9% of the time, I participate in AFD, copyright problems and many community discussions, and I am much more equipped to handle conflicts, and disagreements; on my talk page, an editor was commending me for my approach to the Gordon Watts incident. She says that this edit was what convinced her to support. Quite franky, I believe that I have addressed the #1 problem that others had with me; I have gotten more experience!

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

When this nomination closes, please contact a developer like Tim Starling and ask him to run a "SQL query" to do the promotion. He knows how to do it. Uncle Ed 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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.