Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wilfried Derksen

Wilfried Derksen
final (22/0/2) ending 17:55 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Excellent user. He made huge bunch of articles about politics. He made about 11911 edits since May 2004. I believe, that he will be a good admin. -- Darwinek 17:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * ''I accept. Wilfried Derksen = Electionworld 07:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Strong support. -- Darwinek 17:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - On balance, I think this user's contributions are overwhelmingly positive. At one time I was a bit irritated by what I thought were superfluous prefaces added to articles about every political party he could find, defining what a political party is, but as I've seen more of his work, I've realized that this is a user that we need to see more of.  By the way, he's a Dutch politician - the only professional politician that I've seen in Wikipedia, and as such brings much-needed inside knowledge of the political field. David Cannon 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (''BTW: I am not a professional politican by profession, but am and was an elected official inside resp. an European political party (Bureau member ELDR) and a Dutch party (international secretary D66. Wilfried Derksen = Electionworld 07:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * 3) ugen 64 02:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Dbiv 08:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 14:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 14:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) support. Kingturtle 15:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) I do agree you're a great user. But, you see the rectangular box that says "edit summary" below the edit box? I cannot support you until you put information in there for most of your edits. --Lst27  ( t a l k )  22:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Ok. Sounds good enough to me. --Lst27  ( t a l k )  23:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Strange... I'm agreeing almost word for word with Everyking... It's a pity though, because other than the edit summaries Wilfried seems to be a very fine editor. Given Wilfried Derksen's assurance that he will start using edit summaries, I'm changing my vote. (Hm - I'm trusting a politician here :)  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 23:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Productive editor.-gadfium 23:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Edit summaries are important, they save people on RC patrol a lot of time. I'm not going to oppose such a good user for this reason alone, but at this time a cannot support either. If this small matter is fixed I will most definitely support next time. In light of the assurances made by Wilfried, I am now willing to support. Rje 01:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Excellent user, but I find the lack of edit summaries very disturbing. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) . Wilfried Derksen assured that he will use edit summaries more, so therefore I will support him. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. A fine editor who will be made finer with the keys to the kingdom! - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support – He has shown his suitability by making a conscious effort to improve himself and the quality of his contributions. – ClockworkSoul 18:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Edit summaries are handy and to some extent important, but I can't condone witholding adminship from an otherwise-great editor on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  18:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, though I suggest sticking to one username instead of having one username redirect to the other to avoid potential confusion. --Jiang 04:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. No substantial reason to oppose. Slac  speak up!  04:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Instantnood 08:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Supporte. Guettarda 14:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, looks like a good user, and I like his emphasis on neutrality. Sam Spade 15:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. I haven't met up with this user often, but my experiences have been positive. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  23:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * See my reaction above. I will change the way I edit and select minor when suitable and I will fill in edit summaries, especially when it is not a minor edit. Wilfried Derksen = Electionworld 13:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Complete lack of edit summaries. What I can judge are edits related to Czech Republic and these are acceptable. I really think controversial topics should be supported by edit summaries so people on RC won't waste their time sniffing vandal. Occasional use of minor edit checbox should also make no harm. Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With promise above (and latest edits) I changed my opinion to support. Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm pretty slack about edit summaries too, so I can't really blame him for that, but not marking minor edits seems weird, and gives a false impression of doing more work than one actually has. Occasionally I'll make a minor edit and accidentally forget to check the box and then feel a little guilty. I can't imagine never using it at all. Everyking 12:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Because of my own interest in politics, I'd like to support, but as I've not encounted the user and out of concern for the statements re lack of edit summaries, I cannot at this time. But I won't oppose him either.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Wilfried Derksen currently has 11914 total edits: 9394/379 to articles/talk, 929/25 to Template/talk, 698/10 to Category/talk, 288/99 to User/talk, and 84/8 to Wikipedia/talk. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 09:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

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.)
 * I would concentrate on the work I am doing now, that would mean building sections on politics and doing in that field the normal RC work.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I am very found of the development of the article on Liberalism, very difficult to keep it neutral and giving information on American and non-American liberalism..
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * There were some conflicts on templates or categories, but they were solved in a consensus way.