Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walter


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Walter
Final (35/16/4) ended 17:50 29 December 2005 (UTC)

– I'm nominating myself, because I would like to have access to the sysop functions of this Wiki. When there is a new function that goes live it is often first on the English Wikipdia and later on the others. Like the new "Semi-protection" function. I am the creator of Wikizine and I would be useful for me to have this access so I know how it works and I can inform my readers. I will probably not be doing real sysop stuff on this Wiki, but there are now already 750 of those here so that will not make any difference i think. I am Wikipedian since September 2001, sysop/bureaucrat/ambassador of the dutch wikipedia for years. More; see my user page. --Walter 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- --Walter 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Update; I have added the default questions. I had seen those but the seem not appropriate for my case. But because it seems that the are considered important so I have answered them as good as possible. --Walter 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support He's a bureaucrat in nl-wiki, fer cryin' out loud. I think we can trust him with the tools, even if he won't actually be using them much in en-wiki. The precedent exists... see User:Jasonr.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support It's not about how much you can do with the tools, it's having the sense to use them appropriately. SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - experience on NL and has a good reason for wanting the tools here. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. If we can't trust bureaucrats (from other Wikipedia editions), whom are we supposed to trust? [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] Nightstallion ✉ 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I already put my comment here (see below) and see my reasoning confirmed. Ben T/C 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support This user is one of the founders of Dutch wikipedia, where the admin procedures are similar to here. There should be no question that he can be trusted with the admin tools here as well.  --rogerd 23:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support - though some have opposed because of the number of edits, Walter is a dedicated Wikipedian who has long earned my trust. Though not particularly active here at en:, he is extremely active at meta and nl, and is one of the most trustworthy Wikipedians. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) support an invaluable wikian imho. o s  c  a  r 01:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, we have other admins for technical purposes only.-gadfium 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 04:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Certainly trustworthy. --Michael Snow 04:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) King of All the Franks 05:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I think there should be some kind of accelerated process for those with high permissions on other Wikimedia projects since the normal ways we use of assessing worth on the English Wikipedia (particularly edit count) give a misleading impression. David | Talk 12:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Good guy, won't abuse rights, why worry? He might possibly do something useful, which is enough for me.   [[Sam Korn ]] 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. No reason not to. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Questions anwered. Also, I believe that sysop status should carry over somewhat, but not entirely. He does have to make sure he is familar with en. policy. Still, sysops are not much different elsewhere. He will quickly learn anything he still needs to here. Note that I would normally oppose for low sysop activity, but he is also a bureaucrat, so there is not much too lose.  Voice of  All T 22:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Sam Korn summed it up well. DarthVader 09:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support per above. Just because a user won't use it much doesn't mean it isn't worth giving it to them.  Ral315 (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. A different case indeed, and I was inclined to agree with silsor below (can install MediaWiki), but not everyone can install MediaWiki and it is relatively a hassle. Ultimately, Walter can be trusted as a Wikipedia user, adminship is generally meant to be no big deal, and local policy has breached by admins before- I get the impression this is much less likely with someone like Walter, who is bound to be careful. jnothman talk 12:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) &mdash; Dan | talk 15:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, convincing explanation, was previously not convinced of the need earlier. -- Natalinasmpf 02:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Give the guy a promotion.  Just because He wants to experiment with the new tools doesn't mean He'll abuse 'em. -- Eddie 06:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Smart, trustworthy user who is not likely to abuse administrator tools. Rx StrangeLove 06:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Trustworthy user, no big deal. [[Image:Yemen flag large.png|24px]] CTOAGN (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Assuming good faith here, though I still don't quite get it. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. &mdash; Trilobite 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. A valid, if unusual, reason for wanting access to the admin toolbox. Seems unlikely to abuse it. - Haukur 00:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support 172 05:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Strong support Waerth 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC) - It is not the number of edits that count but if someone would abuse his tools. Walter surely would not!
 * 33) Support &mdash;  &#0275;mpoor!  19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) support Henna 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC) A valid reason, I think I know Walter good enough to trust him not to abuse it.
 * 35) Strong support Walter has proven to be very trustworthy. In all his years on Wikipedia-nl I have never seen him perform any action that was disputed. He never misused his moderatorpossibilities and he is very active in informing the dutch community in international wiki-affairs. CE 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * Oppose I'm afraid. For one, the questions are not answered and this is not set out properly. Secondly you have less than 500 edits spread over nearly 4 years.  Fir e  Fox   17:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Changed to neutral  Fir  e  Fox   22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, you'll need to do more on en-Wikipedia and demonstrate that you are familiar with its procedures before getting access. Also, if you don't anticipate doing sysop duties, you probably don't need access to the sysop tools. --Deathphoenix 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as well. As Deathphoenix said above, f you're not going to be doing real sysop stuff on en-wiki, then by your own admission it's not necessary for you to have access to sysop tools.  RasputinAXP talk contribs 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) strong Oppose per the above comments. I strongly suggest the candidate withdraw his nomination. freestylefrappe 20:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. User does not seem to be active here. AucamanTalk 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per above. Lack of activity. Olorin28 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I'm concerned about wanting the tools for "experiment(ing) whit the cool new functions". Combined with low ammounts of project interaction (User Talk, Policies/Proceedures).   xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  02:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - I'm nominating myself, because I would like to have access to the sysop functions of this Wiki. - Svest 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153; 
 * I seriously doubt someone would nominate Him/Herself solely for getting access to more tools and privledges. -- Eddie 04:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Eddie. I do not believe there is any malicious intent on Walter's behalf, however, I believe you are incorrect about the potential intent of some people who self-nom for RFA. --Sarah Ewart 12:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm profoundly uncomfortable with the tone of the nomination, the answers to the questions and the experience here on en:. The nom and answers seem to reveal some considerable misunderstanding of that nebulous concept of "how we do things" &mdash; and a fairly natural grasp of it is important for an admin. He's a trusted user elsewhere, but seems to need some more mileage here before being adminned. Sysop buttons are not cool new toys for the playing with; please don't put that kind of thing in your next nomination. -Splash talk 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose However compelling the reason to test the new stuff out here on en beforehand, I still do not think that warrants admin ship, and believe it is the wrong way to go 'bout it. Mceder 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. If Walter wanted to be an admin for reasons other than testing, it would be a different matter (and I probably would not vote either way). To be an admin purely to play around with the MediaWiki software is a poor reason to apply to be an admin. You can install MediaWiki on your laptop/desktop if you really want to play around with it. It's not that hard to install (and installing multiple mediawiki on one system is pretty easy too). --Improv 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per the above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Given the concerns raised by others, I feel this nomination should not succeed. If Walter reapplies later with more thorough answers to the questions, and with a real sense of wanting to be an admin at En for reasons other than experimental whimsy, I will glady support. Xoloz 16:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose very mildly. I just can't get over the grammatical issues. I think that administrators should be chosen above all for the quality of their entries, and your self-nom frightens me. Matt Yeager 22:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: I'm pretty sure that English isn't Walter's native language. His native tongue, if I'm correct, is Dutch, and English is a second language to him. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose It's pretty much been said above. Grammar, self-nom(a negative mark in my book), him saying that he hasn't really contributed anything on English Wikipedia, etc. He might be great on .NL, this is .en -- the big show, baby. You'll have to do better than "I want to tool around with sysop powers" to convince me that you're ready for the job. karmafist 08:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, with complete respect. I looked at this RFA and did not recognize the candidate's name.  The reason for this is now quite clear. Despite his strong presence on the Dutch Wikipedia, Walter seems to be only a casual contributor to the English one. Walter edits in short spurts, then disappears, sometimes for weeks, with a net average of one edit per three days. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  08:52, Dec. 27, 2005
 * 3) Reluctantly oppose. Sorry Walter. I support your very hard work on Dutch Wiki, and would be very pleased to support you in future, but I'd like to see more involvement on en first. --Sarah Ewart 12:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with howcheng that the editor is trustworthy, and has a compelling, if novel, reason to request sysop rights. However, the fact that he didn't even bother filling out the questions distresses me somewhat, and is indicative of untrustworthiness, or at least possible recklessness.  Left conflicted, I am Neutral. Xoloz 21:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC) changed to Oppose, see there. Xoloz 16:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) To test the new features and describe them to your readers, download MediaWiki and set up a test server. silsor 07:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  Fir  e  Fox   22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Stuck in Neutral.  I have every reason to believe Walter won't intentionally abuse sysop functions, so I won't oppose.  But at the same time, wanting to "experiment with the cool new functions" is probably about the lamest serious reason for requesting access that I have ever seen, so I am not going support either.  Dragons flight 01:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Deep down inside most people can't wait to expriment with new funtions, but as long as it's not abusive I don't see anything wrong with being able to access them, especially considering Walter's experiance. -- Eddie 08:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) * Neutral - I'd be happy to oblige if he will at least guarantee he will help in vandal fighting here, or at least some actual sysop duties of the sort. -- Natalinasmpf 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) **Just out of curiosity: what difference does it make whether he does or not? Being No Big Deal and all that, what bad effects could Walter's being a sysop do?  At worst, it will be no harm to en.  At best, it could be useful.  I'm not criticising your vote; I'm just curious as to your rationale.   [[Sam Korn ]] 14:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) ***That "cool new features" comment kind of deters me and is a very very small detriment. Pledging to do carry out some form (ie. very minimal) of sysop duties, or a duty if he comes across it would instantly put me on the keep side, however. -- Natalinasmpf 14:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) ****Whether or not we make him an admin, I definitely support keeping Walter!  [[Sam Korn ]] 14:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) ****The formal reason I ask to become sysop here is to have access to possible new functions this wiki has. To see how the work exactly, so I can report about them and make screenshots. An other reason is that it is very annoying if you do not have access to certain options when your are so used to have them. I have at least sysop access to every wiki I use, except EN. I will probably not especially come here to look for sysop-stuff to do, but I can not rule it out. Sometimes you are doing something on a other wiki and you could also change it here. I noticed that the  system message MediaWiki:Confirm purge was not translated on the dutch Wikipedia, so I did it. Then I realized that most users will still not know about what you are saying by the fraze "Clear the cache of this page?". So I wrote a explanation. And I translated it to my pseudo-English for meta:MediaWiki:Confirm purge on Meta. If I where sysop on EN I could also updated the version here. I have put it now on the talk page. But If you have to ask someone else to do something for you it is less likely that you will do it. Basically; make me a sysop here an I will do probably now and then some small things like that. --Walter 23:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I almost voted support since I think that sysop functions should be available to those who can be trusted and would find them useful; some of the the oppose votes seemed a bit mean, but could you please convince me why you couldn't just install a Fedora core release on a computer and then download the latest wikimedia to that? It's definitely the best way to to experiment effectively.  I have done this for referencing experiments myself.  Once you have Linux installed it takes about ten minutes and is incredibly easy. Mozzerati 21:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think it does make a difference who becomes sysop and who doesn't and 500 edits are not much, but this could be a special case. I checked nl:Gebruiker:Walter and saw that he has several mediastars for interviews with several media. Also he made many contributions. I don't know Wikizine but it seems to be a useful weekly news bulletin for wikipedians (has 208 subscribers). If it's true that new mediawiki features come up first in the English wikipedia and in other wikipedias much later, then - provided he is a trustworthy wikipedian - (that's how it seems) it should not be a big deal and he should be granted the sysop priviledges. Ben T/C 19:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, I've heard the "no big deal" statement many times before. If that were really the case, nobody would ask for a promotion.  Virtually everyone I know since I joined is or has been promoted.  To some, it's "no big deal".  To others, it's a sense of accomplishment.  Then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  -- Eddie 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It may not be a big deal, but I think people with the admin flag should at least be weathered. silsor 07:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * En wiki tends not to be first. Big changeovers in particular tend to hit other wikis first. For example I got my hands on pagemove revert over at wikispecies before I did at en.Geni 10:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (Moved this second support vote by EddieSegoura to Comments section. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)): Support. Just as long as You don't abuse those extra function, I don't see anything wrong with Your promotion.  Although this bid might fail, You could always try again in a few weeks. -- Eddie 08:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate (added after the start of the nomination --Walter 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

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.''

That depends of if I get sysop privileges here the will under the condition that I do not use them for real or not. If I became only technically a sysop for testing purposes only, that is fine for me. Then I can experiment whit the cool new functions active on this Wiki on my one user page or test page in my user space.

If a become a full sysop then I will use those functions in the first place for testing. And maybe also now and then for doing some small stuff. I noticed on a page in the Wikipedia-name space a broken link just before I put my nomination here. But the page is protected, so the dead link is not removed. On the dutch wiki I do a lot validation of edits but that function is not active here. If I have time it is quite possible I will do some edit checking. If I would use the functions for real I will make dam sure that it is according policy.

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

On EN I can not say I have have done anything worth to mention. For dutch wiki I am proud that I have been able to be one of the founders of that Wikipedia and help to shape the structures where the community could in grown and that it is doing very well, all things considered. Wikimedia global; I have been advocating long on the mailing lists for more respect and recognition for the "international Wikipedias" like the used to call them. It is difficult to say that made much difference, but I think it did help to get the same treatment for the others. Now I busy with Wikizine and for now that is what I am particularly pleased with. I only regret I have not done it years ago.

''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?''

On EN I have not yet have any conflict over editing. On NL of course well. You discuss it on the talk page and solve it. I see actually no reason to get stress about that.

1. Do you see Wikipedia as one big project with several subprojects, or do you see Wikipedia rather as a collection of independent projects only loosely tied together? --Francis Schonken 08:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Other questions for the candidate


 * I see "Wikipedia" as the global name and core values for all the projects creating "Wikipedias". "Wikipedia" stands for a free encyclopedia, NPOV, non-commercial, free to edit by anyone. But every Wikipedia is not the same. The are not translations. The have all the same tools, the same core values and the same objectives. But the have their own way of doing things, ther own customs, policy, the own community, there own sensitivity's. This also results in fact that I know that I can not behave here the same way like I am used to do on the dutch Wikipedia. --Walter 12:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Concurrently, you're running for steward m:Stewards/elections_2006 (which seems likely to succeed) - would that technically give you access to the experimental admin features? --Francis Schonken 08:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If I become steward I will have technically the power to make myself sysop on EN. I will have the power to give and revoke any of the existing user rights on any Wikimedia wiki of any user. To do this without authorisation would be highly illegal and I do not think I would be long steward if I did that. I have now already technically the power to change the donation paypal address and bank account number on the fundraising page. Having the potential does not mean that you can/may use it. --Walter 12:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Before the curtain falls ...

... would I like to give you some feedback, like you have given me by voting and your comments. It is obvious that I will not make it so it makes no differences anymore.

First of all would I like to thank those who have supported me for the confidence and those who are opposed for there mostly reasonable objections. This procedure was an interesting experience. First of all because I not even considered the possibly that my request could have been rejected. If I did that I would have used a more diplomatic motivation for my request.

When the new semi-protection function came live I was interested to see how it was implemented but I hit the brick wall when I noticed that I need to be sysop for that and I did not was that on EN. I was mostly angry on myself because did not arranged that years ago, but better late then never. It can always come in handy some day to be sysop here. So I applied for sysophood with the idea that this was only a formality. The English Wikipedia was know to be very easy to get sysop status, basically you only had to ask. The false assumption that it was still more ore less like this now together with the fact that there are more then 750 users now whit sysop privileges and so far I know and no regular reconfirmation procedure nor de-sysoping of inactive sysops and that I was an "old hand" in the larger Wikipedia community has given me the (false) impression that to become sysop here was trivial. But things are definitely changed I realize now.

Actually, this is so far I can remember the first time I did apply for it to become sysop anywhere, besides the current steward selection. It seems the my lack of experience in it is showing.

Thanks for your time.

Happy new year,

Walter 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.