Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oldwindybear

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

Oldwindybear

edit

Ended (66/0/1); Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldwindybear (talk · contribs) - An excelent contributer to the Military History Wikiproject. His previous RFA was incorrectly filed by Stillstudying, so this one is being filed on behalf of both; in the case of the former, to grant a mop, and in the case of the latter to recognize his role in the process. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and would do my best if the nomination is approved.

Candidate optional statement: I believe wikipedia is probably the best thing the internet has brought us; an encyclopedia created and maintained by volunteers! It is all of our responsibility to monitor it and try to keep the vandals, and editors who don't take it seriously, at bay.

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would concentrate my efforts in the military history project, as I am most familiar with it. I would attempt to do what I think most admins do, which is keep the vandals at bay, while working on new articles and refinding existing articles. What makes wikipedia so important is its creation as a volunteer driven encyclopedia - and this is also its greatest weakness. I would like to stress that I would increase the hours I devote to wikipedia in order to put in additional hours as an admin, while keeping my committments to the military history project in terms of new articles and refining existing articles. I would also note that I would continue to attempt to help refine articles which have been created as starter articles, but lack the polish that encyclopedia articles should have. A good example is my work in the military history project: recently I have written a series of articles on the Republic of Texas's military history. When they are completed, and their associated articles (also on the Republic) are brought up to standard, I am moving to the Mongol Era, and rewriting all the major articles in that series, and adding 5-10 others to bring that group up to encyclopedia standard. As an admin I would continue my writing, but I would do more administrative work, hopefully recruiting more people into the project, and helping them ease into productive wikipedia roles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have written a number of articles recently on the Indian Wars - I like to think this was my best work. A good exampe is the Battle of Pease River which is one of them. Another of them had some copyvio issues, (I was not careful enough in creating it) but I rewrote it completely, and I think all 5 of them stand as good, solid, articles. I have been a solid contributor to the military history project since it's creation, and I think I have left a solid body of work there both in creating articles, and equally importantly, going where I am asked and polishing created starter articles into final articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Like most editors, I grew as a result of conflict. When I first became a wikipedia contributor, I took things more personally. Part of that was I was undergoing chemotherapy, and the resultant stress was difficult! I used to argue more with people over disputes in viewpoint. I have learned the value of consensus, and that someone has to try to achieve that consensus by finding a viewpoint that reflects the majority and minority viewpoints. I believe my work shows a steady advance towards recruiting other people to help with projects, reaching out to achieve consensus, and including all viewpoints in the articles I am working on. I believe if you study my record, you will see a steady growth as an editor and contributor.
4. Why have your number of edits slow down over the past 6 months or so? Just curious if you have the time to commit to an admin position. Orangemarlin 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Orangemarlin It is a very good question, and here is an honest answer! I had been doing a lot of "upgrade" work for the military history project, which is taking established articles, and improving them. This is not as time consuming as writing articles from scratch. About six months ago, my grandson asked me why there was nothing in wikipedia about the Comanche wars and the Republic of Texas. I checked, and sure enough, there was very little. I then began a deep study of that period, and wrote a series of articles, Buffalo Hump, the Council House Fight, the Great Raid of 1840, the Battle of Plum Creek, and the Battle of Pease River. I also wrote the Medicine Lodge Treaty, which has not been posted yet, and a complete overhaul of the article on Peta Nocona which has been partially posted. Writing articles from scratch, with first doing extensive research - I literally took some vacation time, and went to Texas to the wonderful state history Museam in Austin -- takes a lot more time than upgrade work. I am close to being done with my series on the Comanche wars and the Republic of Texas, and have committed to the coordinator of the Military Project to completely overhauling the series of articles, including writing additional articles, on the Mongol Invasion Era. I am already conversant with that era, so I don't have the additional study I have had the past six months. But to finish answering your question, writing these new articles, in an area I was not as well versed in, slowed my total number of edits. I will make the time for admin work by committing an additional two hours a day average (or 14 per week total) to wikipedia. I do not intend to shortchange the military project or my committments there, and if you elect me an admin, have already told my wife that I will be adding hours for additional wikipedia work. So hopefully that explains why my total number of edits dropped during the last six months - I was researching and writing new articles, and in one case, rewriting it - and as for how I will make time for admin work, I will add hours to the committment I make to wikipedia. I hope this answers your question! old windy bear 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect answer, and thanks for spending the time to answer it in detail.. And I really appreciate a candidate who helps build this article. I'm going to have read some of those articles, even though my interest in that part of US history is almost nonexistent. And nice to know that you're a granddad!!!! I thought I was an old man.Orangemarlin 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemarlin Please let me know (after you read them) whether you thought they were any good. My grandson likes them, but he is prejudiced! Take care, and thanks! old windy bear 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Oldwindybear before commenting.

Discussion

edit

Support

  1. Beat the nom support. I have dealt with this editor and find him to be open-minded and serious about the project. Even though we disagreed strongly the first time we crossed paths, he kept cool and we worked through our differences, and we both came away happy. I believe him to be trustworthy and have no qualms supporting him for mop duty. -- But|seriously|folks  20:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I've observed Oldwindybear in action, particularly on Bonnie and Clyde, where he has shown a level head. -- DS1953 talk 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — I've bumped into the Bear here and there on Wikipedia, and I've always been impressed with his quality of submissions and his cool head. He'd be a great (almost model, if I dare say so) administrator! - NDCompuGeek 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Anyone capable of taking on the five-star rank of Assistant Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject is more than qualified to be an admin on wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support I agree 100% with what TomStar81 said! Politics rule 00:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I've never actually seen Oldwindybear, but from what I can see of his contributions, I'm sure this user would make a good administrator. I am concerned with his lack of recent contributions to process-related areas. There are a series of edit to Battle of Tours from the end of May where he removes a single vandal edit in two edits, which I see as him not using an automated revert tool, and a look at his javascript confirms this. If you're going to be reverting and warning, your job will be a lot easier if you use something like WP:TWINKLE or other javascript tools. Further review shows few warnings or reversions. I'm not convinced that you need the tools, and I hope you choose to do something useful with them. --ST47Talk 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ST47Talk I think you raise a very legitimate point which I should address. I have not used reversion tools simply because I felt that admins should use them. That was a personal choice - I simply felt that as long as I was not an admin I would edit the "old fashioned" way and not use WP:TWINKLE or the other tools available to admins. (That did not mean, obviously, that I did not revert vandalism, we all have an obligation to do that! But I reverted by simple edits, again, because I thought it was more appropriate - that was a personal choice) I wanted to assure you that if granted admin tools, I will certainly use them, though I like to think I will ease into doing so, because I feel like anything else, it behooves a person granted new tools to learn carefully how to use them. I do hope this addresses your concerns, which I felt were legitimate.old windy bear 01:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bear support. —AldeBaer (c) 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. 100%. Great editor, the nom said it all :-) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I cant see a reason why not to. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Superb - extremely experienced and civil. ck lostsword•T•C 10:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - no reason to oppose. Waltontalk 12:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - this editor has proven to be a valued contributor and has earned trust. I would like to comment, however, that if your focus is vandal-fighting, most good anti-vandalism efforts can be done without the use of the admin tools. -- MisterHand 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    MisterHand I think you raise a good point that also should be addressed. I plan to concentrate, at least at the start, in assisting in improving articles, and will use admin tools to that end. I plan to expand the number of hours I am on wikipedia, so that I have extra time to do admin tasks, in addition to the work I have promised the military project on new articles and improving existing articles.old windy bear 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jimbo Support - A very experienced contributor who I know will not abuse the tool :)...--Cometstyles 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support —Anas talk? 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Outstanding applicant who has done a wide range of activities on the project. Not just a police officer. However, slight concern for the low level of editing over the past few months. Orangemarlin 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support You seem like a very experienced editor who will become a great admin. Davis160Talk 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No concerns here. Carom 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — a wonderful, valued, and respected contributor. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I see a great editor here. There is no reason to oppose. Acalamari 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support OWB is trustworthy and would not misuse the tools. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. SupportDagomar 05:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Great editor. I know him from WPMILHIST and he is perfect for the job. Kyriakos 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support After a review of his contribs, I trust this user basically implicitly. --Haemo 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, excellent user. Everyking 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support based upon 1) Contributions as evidenced by history 2) Fantastic civility based on my own personal interaction 3) The answers to the questions which are detailed yet pertinent. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  10:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support The Bear should be made an admin because of his help to new editors, his work towards always obtaining consensus, and his insistance on civility. I think it sends a message that hard quiet workers who concentrate on writing articles and helping others can get admin status!Stillstudying 11:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I don't usually look at the uncontroversial ones but the name appealed so I look a look. It come under the heading of "why would anyone not be happy with this guy as an admin" to me. Pleasant in manner (rare) and a good contributor who can see what is going on around them. Works well for me and good luck --Herby talk thyme 11:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, yes. Neil ╦ 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. A diligent and conscientious editor who is fully devoted to the project; I have no doubt he'll make a fine admin. Kirill 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. We can disagree on content issues sometimes, but Oldwindybear is certainly a respected and productive editor. Beit Or 21:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A good editor. Will be a good admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Seems to be a model editor :) --Quiddity 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I feel this editor is civil and dedicated, based on a review of his contributions. Andre (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support User is great. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. The candidate is dedicated contributor and has the makings of a competent admin. Majoreditor 12:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Looks like a great editor and see nothing to suggest will not make a good admin. Davewild 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Solid contributions and reasonable rationale for why editor wants the tools. Espresso Addict 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I'm sure the maturity will go a long way! JodyB talk 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Jaranda wat's sup 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Better late than never. ;) Even though I've never dealt with the candidate personally, I'm familiar and impressed with some of his work (mostly through WP:MILHIST) and I don't see any reason not to support his RFA. --S up? 22:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support No big reasons not to support this user. Good luck:)--†Sir James Paul† 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Bucketsofg 01:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Very fair minded and articulate. Has done a good job with the Bonnie and Clyde article, just hope he's good with admin tools. I was actually very happy to stumble upon this nomination. --Strothra 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. First time in a long while where I could write Support based on personal interaction. A pleasant preson to work with, & someone I'll affirm -- based on my 4.5+ years of experience here -- knows how Wikipedia not only works, but should work. (Unlike a few I could mention.) -- llywrch 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. No problems here. Valentinian T / C 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Good record, impeccable recommendations.Proabivouac 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support this little exchange seals the deal for me. Borisblue 06:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Borisblue Thanks! I remember this! I was doing what I do much of the time, and working to be peacemaker and achieve consensus. A VERY good editor was very frustrated, and I read several books trying to get a handle on the issues to help get it straightened out. Thank you for remembering it...old windy bear 09:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I'm not that convinced that you'll use the tools very much, but you've had good interactions with users. Sr13 06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I'm confident he'll make a great Admin -FlubecaTalk 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Miranda 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong support. Strong contributor of content; in fact, he's still making substantive additions to articles while his RfA is running. Based on his interactions with others on his talk page and elsewhere, I trust him to not hit people over the head with the handle of the mop. User:Argyriou (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, no problem here. Good luck. Carlosguitar 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Garion96 (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Sarah 09:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support —dima/talk/ 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support He deserves it. Finishedwithschool 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Sorry to add-on to the support pile-on (humor) but after sampling your contribution history, you talk page and your katewannabe results I feel confident you are familiar with Wikipedia to work efficiently as an admin. --Ozgod 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ozgod I have done my best to prepare to become an admin, because I believe in this project with all my heart, and want to do everything within my power to see it become what I know it can, (and already has, to some extent!), the world's greatest and largest encyclopedia. Thanks for your support, and thanks to everyone who has supported me, you will not be disappointed...old windy bear 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Your answers to the questions (especially #4) are outstanding. I don't think question #4 could have been answered any better by anyone. Your avg edits per page (11.96) shows that you spend a lot of time on articles. I haven't really seen you before on Wikipedia, but I still can trust you and I give you my support.++aviper2k7++ 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    aviper2k7 I thank you, as I again thank everyone who has trusted me, and I can only assure you I will work as hard as I can to show you the trust is not misplaced.old windy bear 23:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Peacent 03:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Level-headed, mature editor. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Great editor with wonderful contributions. Adds a diversity of experience to Wikipedia. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Why not? --Dark Falls talk 06:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral. I have no worries about this editor's contributions; however, neither do I see a real need for the admin tools in the answers. As far as I'm aware, all the new tasks mentioned (recruiting, mentoring) can be done by a standard editor. Espresso Addict 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to Support.[reply]

Espresso Addict Greetings, and you also raise a good point, which I feel I should respond to. To some extent, you are correct. I can write articles, upgrade articles, monitor vandals, and recruit new editors all without being an admin. But I also feel that at least to some extent that committed editors want to advance into admin work simply as a facet of taking on greater responsibility in a project I am totally committed to, and believe in. I also believe that I would be a good admin, committed to using the tools wisely, encouraging civility and consensus. Would I stop doing those things if I was not an admin? Of course not. But I do believe it is natural to want to advance into admin work, and contribute more. And that, to me, is the bottom line. I would like to do more. I will add (and I am not knocking self nominations at all) that I did not self nominate. Another editor thought enough of my work to nominate me, and thought I could contribute more. I believe I could contribute more also, and would do a good job, and accepted. I think it is part of a natural progression to want to do more in anything that we do, and thus, I see this as a natural progression for me, if my work is good enough. I hope, in reviewing it, you will believe it is. I hope this answer explains why I think good editors would want to be admins - it is accepting more rseponsibility in a project I believe wholeheartedly in. old windy bear 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation, Oldwindybear. I'd appreciate if you could list a few specific tasks for which the admin tools are needed that you plan to start if your RfA succeeds. Espresso Addict 00:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso Addict I would involve myself in page protection, which of course I would be able to do myself, rather than having to burden an admin with it, (which I have tended not to do in the past, as I don't like piling up requests on the admins). We have a number of articles which need deletion after consolidation in the military project which I could be more involved in as an admin, since the tools would allow me to be more directly involved - after doing the consolidation I could go ahead and delete the excess article. I would block vandals - we have a number of people who seem to get great pleasure out of targeting certain articles, and I would like to be more directly involved with dealing with that. I would be more involved with usernames, and monitoring them, with appropriate action. Those are four specific areas I would use the admin tools immediately in. I would hope I have built a reputation for fairness and civility that would help me get consensus also to move some articles listed for review for deletion into consensus and onto deletion where appropriate.old windy bear 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
old windy bear Hey Bear, for what it is worth, I believe you are correct. Editors ought to strive for such trust that other editors want to move them into adminship, as in this case, most of us do you! I would not have rewritten my first article recently without your encouragement. You will make a great admin!Stillstudying 11:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that if the candidate is trust worthy, it can't hurt to have another admin on board, even if they only use the tools occasionally. Spawn Man 12:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man I agree, and would hope you would look at the quality of oldwindybear's work, and not just the total numbers. He has not said, but I will, that he wrote at least 5 new articles that I know of, (because I reviewed some of them!), and that was just in the last month! The overall numbers may not be as high, but his work is great, and he always has time to help others. That level of trust is what will make him a great admin, and why I nominated him. Stillstudying 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - I was going to vote support, but saw that the user had a low Wikipedia namespace count, far less than the 1K I set for my standard & doesn't have as many total edits as I'd like him to have. I know numbers don't add up to the actual work in them, but they give a rough representation & I'm sticking to my standards. I don't think that the user would misuse the tools & if not for the low counts, I'd support. Overall, I don't see that much to turn me to oppose & I don't have enough personal experiences with the candidate - I doubt this nom will fail anyway though... Cheers, Spawn Man 12:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Spawn Man I cannot say a great deal if I don't have the minimum number of edits you feel an admin should have. I have nearly 5,000 and those involved a significant number of new articles, including 5 good ones last month. Still is right in that I have concentrated on writing new articles, and helping other editors to the detriment of pure numbers. Well, thanks for not opposing, though of course I would like your support! old windy bear 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my support of course! Just not in this nom - I don't want to let my standards go for one person & not another in case someone calls it favouritism. I think you'll make a good admin. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man I appreciate it! I understand about having standards, and I appreciate that you did not oppose me! Take care!old windy bear 09:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Oldwindybear&oldid=1257444041"