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 Bowen03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Alhutch04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support level headed, good ability to perform the maintenance tasks that admins are supposed to do, but far too often don't
Cynical12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I especially like the 'being nice to newcomers' diffs (I wish I knew how to be that nice without sounding patronising).
Raven4x4x09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Mathbot04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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?
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)?
Hermione198001:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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?
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.
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 Bowen03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Alhutch04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support level headed, good ability to perform the maintenance tasks that admins are supposed to do, but far too often don't
Cynical12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I especially like the 'being nice to newcomers' diffs (I wish I knew how to be that nice without sounding patronising).
Raven4x4x09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Mathbot04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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?
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)?
Hermione198001:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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?
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.