Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Journalist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Journalist

No consensus (4/11/5) closed 20:42 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Journalist (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination (Im a bit chagrined). Ive been contributing to Wikipedia probably since about June (I know that this seems short, but Ive been on Wikipedia EVERYDAY since then — hope that counts, however small). Ive made many useful edits edit count since Ive been here, mainly to articles dealing with Pop culture/music. Most of theses edits are major such as wikifying an article or developing a stub (however Im still working on them). Im totally committed to the encyclopedia and I have read most of the protocols and have remaind professional (especially after my user-page was vandalised incessantly). Most recently, Ive been focussing on Special:Newpages and adding templates to them if necessary. I would think of the promotion, not as a privelege, but as an extra responsibility that I would love to take on. I am responsible, capable and courteous -- Journalist 07:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination:) Journalist

Support

  1. Support. Journalist does good work and I like his answers to the questions below. One little thing: please remember to consistently use edit summaries. Sietse 18:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support - meets my standards. So long as he doesn't contribute like a jornalist... LOL! --Celestianpower hab 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support- would make a good administrator. Journalist's contributions to Wikipedia have been impressive. Khalif 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support already took above into account.... eeeexxxxceeeelllllent --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Too inexperienced in my opinion. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Hasn't been here for very long. Only has 12 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. That shows you don't vote on RFAs very much. I don't think you should become an admin unless you take part in the process. Acetic Acid 04:25, 21 August 2005
  3. Will support at 1000+ edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, work mainly on female singers, doesn't follow or contribute to Special:Newpages or Special:Recentchanges, VfD, CfD, Copyright Problems... For simple editing no admin powers are needed. Also a low editcount. feydey 12:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Two months is much too short, not to mention the lack of experience. siafu 14:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: Does not use edit summaries very frequently. Also, I'm a bit troubled by some rapid {{nonsense}} tags added today (August 22) to a couple of pages [1], [2]. I recommend the nominee add pages they think might be nonsense to their watchlist and come back to them when a user familiar with a given topic has had a chance to work on the article in question. If this user addresses these concerns and is up for nomination again after a couple of months have passed, I will support. Everything else looks to be good. --Durin 14:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, regretably. I remember feeling a similar way in June after I'd been here a month- but I've learned since than that I simply hadn't had enough experience in wiki-conflict to be a good admin. I'm sure you're a conscientious and helpful wikipedian, but give it a few months, please. If your contributions to the project remain so positive, I will support.--Scimitar parley 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose- not been on here long enough Astrotrain 19:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Andre (talk) 02:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I hate to be a party pooper, and I get no enjoyment out of casting an oppose vote. However, I don't think you're ready yet. This is me talking from an administrator's stance: I don't think you've sufficently learned the ropes yet. I think if you learned how to apply applicable Wikipedia guidelines to your article edits, you'd be much better off in the long run. Come back with improvement and I'll support you. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, my brief interaction with the editor while I mediated Mariah Carey was quite positive, but I still feel that he needs a few more months of participation before he is given sysop rights. --Sn0wflake 18:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Total edits: 1,230; edits in Article space: 795; edits in Image space: 111.
    I think that he'll make a good admin when he's been here a bit longer (I don't insist on a minimum of 1,000 edits, though...). I certainly see no reason to vote against, it's just he needs more experience in order for me to support him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Good contributor, but I will support after more Wikipedia namespace edits. You're on the right track, though; I liked your answers to the questions. Jaxl | talk 01:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Will support at a few more Wikipedia: namespace edits. - ulayiti (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Robert McClenon 00:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with an total # of edits line, and average edits per day is available here: Image:Journalist-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:29, 22 August 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: I would mostly deal with vandals if I were to be accepted. My user-page has been vandalised relentlessly by users calling me 'turd' etc and I believe that i could give a helping hand in reverting vandalisations and blocking unscrupulous editors. I would also protect pages and try to settle edit wars and disputes.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I mostly seek out 'forgotten articles' and stubs and try to develop them as much as I can. These include musicians and celebs such as Chante Moore, Rachelle Ferrell, Kenneth Edmonds, Elaine Hendrix and others. Right now, they may not seem first rate, but they were practically a mess before I developed them, so Im quite happy that I have contributed to them to try to make them seem encyclopedic. Apart from the aforementioned articles, here are a couple others that Ive developed:


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 only one conflict since Ive been here. It was about the Mariah Carey article. A user had virtually saturated the article with superfluous requests for references that kind of clouded the article. On the talk page, others were complaining and they all agreed that they all were not needed. I therefore went along and deleted them as I was under the impression that these complaints were a concesus for their removal. It turned out that I was mistaken and one user was very angry with me. I said that I was sorry, however and we worked together to obtain sources. We have gotten past that now and the article is ok, though a bit lengthy :). In the future, I plan to apologise for my mistakes and try to work with the person the make the situation better.