Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chick Bowen

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] Chick Bowen

final (58/0/0) ending 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Chick Bowen (talk · contribs) – After thinking about it for quite a while I've decided to apply for administrator status. I am an occasional RC patroller but am more interested in copyright and image work. I've been editing since June of last year and on a daily basis since September, as you can see with Interiot's tool. I've contributed substantially to articles, primarily in humanities subjects; I have a featured article, Mário de Andrade, and a great many shorter articles of which I am the sole non-minor editor (see my user page for a full list of the articles I've created). I'm very careful about citation and verification; see Laurence Clarkson, Keorapetse Kgositsile, and Syl Cheney-Coker for recent work (though I've waffled between different forms of citation in the past, I've recently started using <ref> and am delighted with it, so I'll soon be converting a lot of my existing articles). Here are some diffs of me being quite thorough about things: [1] [2]; being nice to newcomers while pointing the way toward better Wikipedia habits: [3] [4] [5]; saving an image from WP:IFD: [6]. I'm happy to provide more diffs or answer any questions about any of my contributions. Chick Bowen 03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Chick Bowen 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Seems a well-rounded contributor. Happy to be the first one to support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - seems well-versed in policy and could use the tools. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support I have often come across this user around Wikipedia doing good work, and until a moment ago, I was pretty sure he was already an administrator.--Alhutch 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good guy, has a sense of humor too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right? Swatjester 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Well-rounded contributor, will use the SysOp rights well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. User shows plenty of common sense and I like the answers to question 1, which shows a desire to perform maintenance work. --Deathphoenix 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Good record of substantial work. Pschemp | Talk 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Of course. Johnleemk | Talk 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support -lethe talk + 06:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. We need more administrators who are conscientious and careful like Chick. --Michael Snow 06:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Looks in order. Put him to work. ;) No Guru 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support of course. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support I looked this over earlier and everything looks excellent.--MONGO 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Proto||type 12:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - Liberatore(T) 12:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Another one whose careful and thoughtful work would be aided by the toolbox. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Absolutely, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Fine contributions. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, well-rounded user.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support I know Chick through his work at WP:MEA. He is balanced and polite and an excellent contributor. He is well qualified for adminship. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, everything looks good Hiding talk 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support very good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Yes --Jaranda wat's sup 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. support - while I dislike self-noms, I appreciate that you're not here to go stomping on vandals. aa v ^ 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - Bobet 23:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - looks like he would be a good admin abakharev 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. support: Strong contributor evidently dedicated to building an encyclopedia. Ombudsman 23:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, no reason not to. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support--Jusjih 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support seems to be a great user... Mikkerpikker ... 12:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Seems to be an excellent editor. Marskell 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Welcome aboard. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Looks good. Krashlandon (e) 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Pick your favorite RfA support cliche. youngamerican (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support --Syrthiss 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Mjal 02:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support good editor --rogerd 04:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support level headed, good ability to perform the maintenance tasks that admins are supposed to do, but far too often don't Cynical 12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. BD2412 T 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. I especially like the 'being nice to newcomers' diffs (I wish I knew how to be that nice without sounding patronising). Raven4x4x 09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. I'm familiar with Bowen's work: constructive and polite. Redux 12:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. 'Support All in 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support strong support for me. Good editor.Gator (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support --Ugur Basak 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Guettarda 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Excellent editor. --FloNight 05:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Seems like a cool chick. Thumbelina 17:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support - Gladly. Sango123 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    Support Good editor. Thoughtful answers to questions. FloNight talk 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    FloNight voted twice: see #55. Thanks for the support, though! Chick Bowen 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that! FloNight talk

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Chick Bowen's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
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:

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. Primarily WP:CP, WP:IFD, CAT:NS, Category:Images with unknown copyright status, and other related pages. I am an academic and have considerable experience both in identifying unoriginal work and in the proper fair use of copyrighted material; I don't think we should be scared of fair use but I also think we have to know what we're doing when we make use of it. For text I think that our material should be original when at all possible; GFDL text is preferable to any other status. In dealing with WP:CP, sometimes that means deleting, sometimes rewriting (as I did at Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art/Temp, still in the queue at CP), sometimes cleaning up.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Two broad categories:
Lately I've been working on anglophone African poets: Solomon Mutswairo, Oswald Mbuyiseni Mtshali, and others already mentioned.
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. Mostly just the usual stuff from vandals. I've had an unpleasant fellow bugging me on my user page for a while (amused, apparently, by my user name after I left him a standard vandalism message): [7], [8], [9]; I've never responded directly at all, but simply posted info at WP:AIV or asked advice of an admin ([10]). People very occasionally react badly to being asked for image copyright info, as this editor did, though I'd asked him nicely, using standard templates; I chose to respond on my talk page rather than his: [11]. I felt my "good grief" was quite justified. For examples of my interactions with other editors over stuff I really care about, see the peer review and FAC for Mário de Andrade.
4. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)? Hermione1980 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That would depend on the circumstances and on the log entry for the other admin's action. If the entry made sense--e.g., if my ignorance of pop culture led me to delete something as patent nonsense that was actually just referring to a context I hadn't recognized--I would happily let it go. If it didn't make sense, I would do two things: leave a message on the admin's talk page requesting clarification, and post a message at WP:AN requesting external review. I don't think my demeanor would change as an admin; if you look through my contributions, I believe you'll see that I have never reverted the same article more than once except for clear vandalism.
5. More importantly, in what circumstances if any would you unblock without fully discussing the issue with the blocking admin or others? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If it seemed absolutely clear that a mistake had been made--for example, if someone blocked User:SlimVirgin with the summary "Impostor of SlimVirgin" (someone, can't remember who, once accidentally blocked himself that way)--I think it would be reasonable to just fix it and then explain to all involved. I just saw another good example in the log: [12]--Curps's bot didn't like the person's username, but Splash felt the bot was in error, as bots sometimes are (although I'd want to know more about how Curps's bot works before making that kind of decision). Otherwise, I can't think of a circumstance in which I wouldn't consult with somebody, if the blocking admin weren't responding. Admins usually respond to AN and AN/I very quickly; another thing I've sometimes done before in an urgent situation is to check the most recent entries in the block log to see which admins are active right at that moment. And why does it matter if someone's blocked for an extra ten minutes while everything is sorted out?
    • Well, maybe the username block wasn't such a good example, as Curps has now reblocked the user I was discussing. Clearly the moral is that great care must be taken in unblocking. Chick Bowen 17:38, 8 February 2006 (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.