Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chowells

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Chowells

[edit]

Final (31/12/2) ended 00:34 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Chowells (talk · contribs) – I've thought about this for a while but I'm going to self-nominate myself. I think the only reason why I might be unsuccessful is that in some people's eyes I might not have been around long enough. But I'm a quick learner, have created quite a few articles from scratch, done quite a bit of refactoring on existing articles and done quite a bit of admin/cleanup work so I think I have sufficient experience. I joined wikipedia in July 2004 and I had a handful of minor edits until the beginning/mid September 2005. Since that, apart from my first week back at uni and whilst I was on holiday I've been actively working on wikipedia pretty much every day. chowells 00:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Gladly accept, naturally ;) chowells 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Allow me to be the first. Editcountitus is teh sux, and the one who invented the editcounter realizes this. Did Kate post that message for no reason? Did she convince no one? Because he is under 2000 (Angela made it with 68, and I guess she's an alright editor...) does it mean he'll abuse the tools? I trust that he'll ask when he's not sure what to do. The only reason to oppose someone based on edit count would be in the unlikely possibility that they could be some troll, and looking at Chowells edits, he must be one damn good actor if he is one ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that although my first edit was April 20th, I believe I had a period of inactivity in May (I'm sorry, I was in Europe...) and then I passed RfA July 26 or so, so I wasn't even active for three months, and yet I'd say I'm a pretty active admin... Redwolf24 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You're sorry that you were in Europe? What's wrong with Europe? I live there. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing Kate convinced me of was that s/he likes to condescend. Marskell 16:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cautious support per Redwolf. ~~ N (t/c) 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support V/M ! 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support with no reservations, I trust Chowells very much. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appending to this, I'd like to point out that the creep in standards for admins is getting bad. 1000 edits is plenty, don't make it 2000. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. No reason to believe this candidate would abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I've seen good work, and edit counts aren't the be all end all. -- Essjay · Talk 02:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --JAranda | watz sup 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. From zero to hero. Are you a wikiholic? The Minister of War 07:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. the wub "?!" 13:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Chowells removes a lot of vandalism. As an admin Chowells could use rollback + ban users that keep vandalising. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+ 15:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tentative Support - I would have recommended beforehand waiting a couple of months before self-nominating though I have nothing against this editor's nomination at this moment in time. -- Francs2000 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. El_C 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I checked and he is good vandal fighter, which is an evergrowing problem. I think we nedd lots of them No problems.-Dakota 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Kefalonia 08:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 11:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Major bonus that he created articles from stratch, I do that myself alot and it takes a ton of work and energy to learn a topic well enough to make a decent page, his time on Wikipedai isn't a problem, way past 3 months and usually the edit count is extremely overemphasized by the voters so that doesn't matter to me as long as he has over 500. --Patman2648 talk 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support, la! - Prolific against vandals and overall good contributions. I'm sure he'll make a great admin! SoLando (Talk) 03:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, no reason not to. Alphax τεχ 11:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Molotov (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. --Randy 20:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good range of articles, nice use of edit summaries and POV fighting, starts new articles. Turnstep 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I sure could do with some help on the vandalism IRC channel... --Celestianpower háblame 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - According to Raul654, we only have about 10-20 people on RC patrol at any time. This user is active on RC patrol. 10-20 people to control 37 billion edits per second is not enough. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 19:19
  30. support GraemeL (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Decent guy, no reason not to support. Tintin 15:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too soon. --Sn0wflake 06:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, only 4 weeks real activity, no matter how intensive, is not enough. Proto t c 13:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Spend some time contributing in the WP namespace. Come back in a month or two and I will support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. He is not ready yet. Mayebe in the future. Carioca 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Sorry, too soon. Private Butcher 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: Sorry, too soon. Jonathunder 22:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, 4 weeks real activity is significantly too short. It may feel like you'll be ok by then, but there's just stuff that happens that it takes a bit longer than that to pick up on. Even after the three-month golden line there's plenty to learn (trust me!). I would also like to see more Wikipeda: and related space edits. Editcountitis is only teh sux when you merely think, "oh, he's below Xthousand". Looking at edit count numerics is simply asking that a user have more experience of pressing save, having to live with the consequences and being able to patch things up when they make a mistake. This is particularly true in Wikipedia: space where conflicts too often flare up. Keep up the good work for a couple more sets of 4-weeks, and I'm sure you'll be fine. You'll be surprised at how much more you learn between now and then. -Splashtalk 06:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sorry, but I think you're still too inexperienced. Radiant_>|< 13:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. For the reasons listed above. BlankVerse ∅ 02:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose, seems like a good editor, but has been active on Wikipedia for too little time. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Splash. Marskell 16:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Splash says it well. Borisblue 17:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Splash. —Wayward Talk 23:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Dedicated, good-faith, unproblematic, but I'm not comfortable supporting someone this green. In two more months you might be a shoe-in. ~~ N (t/c)
  1. same as Nickptar. Three months of solid editing would be good - your record's fine, but only minor editing until recently is a concern. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been contributing fairly heavily for a bit over a month. Before then I didn't have any particular interest in Wikipedia other ensuring that a few minor problems like spelling errors were corrected and attributed to me rather than a random IP. I'm somewhat of a perfectionist and I don't particulary like mess :) chowells 01:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. He does have over 700 article edits, a good chunk of the 1200. Not sure though.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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'm already active in RC patrolling and monitor the #wikipedia-en-vandalism IRC channel as well as Special:Recentchanges which helps me catch quite a bit vandalism and other undesirable edits. Up to now of course the reverting has been done by hand though as of today I've been messing around with the "godmode-lite" script but it leaves a little to be desired so it would be very very very nice to gain access to the proper rollback tool. In addition I've got about 250 articles on my watchlist and monitor every change to these. I've also nominated a few articles on AfD and participate in voting on AfDs. So it would also be nice to gain the ability to close AfDs after voting had finished.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. One of my first "major" contributions was the creation of the James Young Simpson stub, an article about someone who I am apparently a descendant of. I was hooked on Wikipedia when I saw others contributing to it and turning it into a more of a fully fledged article. So whilst I didn't do the majority of the work there I'm pleased with that.

Of the articles that I created and have contributed the majority of the material to I am pleased with are Liverpool Blitz, Unterseeboot 534, GWR 6000 Class 6000 King George V and GWR 6000 Class 6023 King Edward II.

I've also contributed quite a few photos, firstly uploading them to Wikipedia but once I found out about commons, to there. [1]

Of refactoring, I'm happy with my recent changes to Otto Frank here [2] and to Capel Celyn.

Of my photos, I quite like Image:Prinsengracht Canal By Night.jpg.

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 initially wasn't particularly impressed with some of User:Duncharris's comments here [3] and here [4]. Though is wording is quite harsh I think I took them to be even more strongly worded than was intended. However I think I stayed reasonably calm and everything is fine now. Apart from that I haven't had any major conflicts.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chowells&oldid=1210724705"