Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dewet

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.

[edit] Dewet

Final (57/21/7) ended 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dewet (talk · contribs) – I hereby have the pleasure to nominate Dewet for adminship. Dewet has been a registered user on the English Wikipedia since September 2004 and has more than 2500 edits to his name. He is also a contributor to and an admin on the Afrikaans Wikipedia.

Dewet is a well-respected and valued contributor on South African topics. He also does loads of anti-vandal work (using popups) and is a cool head in any debate. Dewet would definitely be an asset to the Wikipedia mop brigade and is definitely a person trusted with the sysop tools.

Regards, Elf-friend 13:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you, I accept. dewet|✉ 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, as nom. Elf-friend 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, looks like a good asset. Gadig 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: You've stayed here long enough, and (regardless of edits per namespace) you must be ready for the mop. --Slgrandson 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good user, should use the mop wisely. --Tone 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Edit-conflicted support. In this case, time makes up for edit count; this user knows the drill. I also like the answer to Q1—there's honesty for you. Mop time! RadioKirk talk to me 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, without a doubt. Zaian 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    ...and having seen the oppose votes below, I still support. I have watched many of the same pages as Dewet, and I have never seen signs of Dewet "biting the newbies" or reverting something that didn't need to be reverted. Zaian 00:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Has been around a long while doing sensible things. - BanyanTree 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support.™ --Rory096 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Appears to have a good history of use on Wikipedia. --Wisden17 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Bucketsofg✐ 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support An experienced user. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    #Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, a good user. Has a good history on Wikipedia.Jordy 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Look good. Nephron  T|C 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. This is exactly the kind of user I am happiest to support. Experience over edit count. --Danaman5 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. ForestH2
  18. Support. Looks fine, and a lot of people who express good opinions on an RfA have supported. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Good user. DarthVader 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per above. Martinp 23:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per above. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 01:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support although the points brought up in the oppose section are worth noting. joturner 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Weak Support Weak only because of the points below; stereotypes aren't for Wikipedia. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Moved to oppose due to reconsideration. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --Terence Ong 05:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, considered, sensible, mature editor who will use the mop well, i feel. Rockpocket (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Take heed of the opposing voters comments, and you'll be a great admin. Kevin 08:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support --Canderous | Talk 09:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Edit count is low, but he works on more than one wikipedia. Is addressing WP:BITE concerns. Does welcome newcomers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Well ok. I've seen this name before, and didn't hear anything negative about him/her. --Shultz IV 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support Good user. ForestH2 Duplicate vote. — GT 07:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support per RadioKirk and Jordy, and inasmuch as adminship is--say it with me--no big deal. Joe 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support per other users. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support -- per joe --T-rex 01:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Weak Support -- support per above, weak per below; the en server is a different animal, but experience on the Africaans one will help. Take heed of the WP:BITE concerns, and you'll be fine. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 06:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support It's quite natural to revert suspicious unexplained anonymous edits, preferably with an edit summary requesting a source for the suspicious information. Haukur 08:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Seems like a good user Dr.Poison 11:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support While the user seems to occasionally lose his cool in discussions, Dewet seems to be capable of refraining from translating this into edits. We need more South African admins. -Kieran 11:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support He has sufficient experience, and is a good editor. No objections here. — Impi 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Dewet is a good user and have come across his edits many times on South African wikis. We need more of him. --Jcw69 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support A good contributor with a level head. Wizzy…☎ 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support I was pretty neutral, but his answers to the questions below are among several examples I saw of his impressive experience. Steveo2 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Dewet has proven to be an editor of note: I have often come accross his edits on South African issues, which he has contributed significantly to. I am sure he will do a good job. -- Chris Lester talk 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support: per above. He's a great editor, and seems to have every South Africa-related article on his watchlist. ;-) My (admittedly minor) interactions with him have been entirely positive. - htonl 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Huge support Awesome edits. General Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif Eisenhower 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Dewet has made great to South African topics, and, in my interactions with him, he has never bitten any newbies. I do not think he will abuse his powers. -- Banez 06:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support:
    Checked admin action on Afrikaans wikipedia: seems good, I can't it check tho.
    Checked user_talk page and archives and their history logs: good.
    Checked 100 contributions: 2006-04-26t15:10:32z/2006-05-01t07:54:02z: article major: 13, article minor: 14, rv/rm of old vd: 40, article talk: 10, user talk: 5, user talk warnings: 12, wikipedia: 5, wikipedia talk: 1: good, except for the accidental deletions at that lasted for 21 minutes and was fixed by another editor, and at Afrikaner that messed up the article; should be a strong reminder to check all admin actions afterwards.
    Checked 6 contributions: 2005-09-08t05:56:02z/2005-09-25t19:54:34z: article major: 3, article minor: 3: good.
    1st logged edit: good.
    I have see no problem with using WP:V for anon edits, tho a link to WP:V in edit summary would be better.
    While I disagree with the categorization as minor for some of his edits, looks like a good candidate for admin. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t11:44z
    More accidental deletions of text at bottom of articles, this time on this page at 2006-05-20t17:22:27z. I'll change my vote to oppose if you don't fix your software, or check after every edit to make sure it hasn't happened and then fix it yourself if it has. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t22:07z
    Thanks for the feedback, Jeandré. The page truncation issue is new, and I honestly have no idea why its happening. I use Firefox exclusively, but edit boxes are served up with truncated text — even shift-refreshing has no effect. Coming back later will mostly cause it to be served in completion. Because the popups I use utilise javascript to automatically click "save page", it is sometimes unavoidable, and then trying to repair it by hand still results in truncated text, effectively leaving me unable to fix it. I will try using Konqueror for a while to see if it is consistent over browsers. But rest assured that I try to always go back to the page history and diff it, just to be sure, although I am just human and do forget sometimes. dewet|✉ 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support this user. Lankiveil 23:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Although you should check the anon's contrib after you revert it... Fetofs Hello! 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Cautious support William M. Connolley 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support For the reasons stated above. Mr. Turcottetalk 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support He does really good job in Wikipedia. Daniel5127, 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Mostly Rainy 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Stuart Steedman 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) - A respected authority in most articles of South African flavour.
  54. Support. The comments under the oppose heading are good, but overall I see Dewet as a careful and knowledgable editor who understands the comments, will take them to heart, and will properly use the tools. -- DS1953 talk 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. Valuable editor, will make a great admin. I once asked Dewet for help, believing he was an admin. He promtly helped fix the problem without a fuss, despite that we had disagreed over some edits. --Ezeu 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Additional comment vis-a-vis the WP:BITE concerns. I have come across Dewet occasionally, and I do not see any need for worry. When the article Nelson Mandela was close to create a divide between the few but vocal African editors, Dewet, with one edit, calmed the situation. Dewet has, as far as I know, the qualities of a good admin.--Ezeu 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Back to Support' Jaranda wat's sup 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Looks good, he positively responded to constructive criticism and sought to correct himself.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, per the below text taken from his userpage, which suggests that he inherently assumes ill faith of anonymous users. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 22:42 UTC
I've removed the text because it was causing formatting problems, but it can be read on his userpage still (concerning anonymous editors). —CuiviénenT|C|M, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 23:24 UTC
His attitude is a bit harsher than many, but does not seem egregious. If he genuinely checks the edit before (and no reason to suppose he does not), whether or not he has access to the rollback button should not make a huge difference. Martinp 23:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not so much concerned about access to rollback as the anti-new-user attitude that underlies the statement. By his description, I would expect him to review the edit, but an edit being "suspicious" does not seem like a criterion for automatic reverting. It's holding anonymous users to higher standards than normal users, something we need to avoid. —CuiviénenT|C|M, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 23:47 UTC
Moved to Neutral. —CuiviénenT|C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 01:18 UTC
Thanks for you comments, as well as those below. Firstly, I didn't realise that it would evoke such a heated response; It is a statement of fact, not of opinion, since this is exactly what vandal control is about. Yes, I do check every edit — I do not just revert from my watchlist. In fact, a lot of very useful contributions to South African articles were made by persons wishing to remain anonymous, and I have respect for that. However, as I also stated in my answers below, I deal with vandalism daily, and 99% of those are simple and plain &mash; my statement of reverting is a statement of "erring on the side of caution", since I've come across articles were very subtle vandalism went undiscovered only until very late. Lastly, any change that is motivated in any way (edit summary, talk page, etc.) will not be subject to this reaction — this is exactly what other contributors need to assess the validity of any addition: motivation and/or debate. Thanks, dewet|✉ 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Cuivienen - this person does not need the rollback button to make this behavior even easier. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, we cannot have an administrator biased against anon contributions, even if "the change seems unmerited or suspicious in any way" (which is subjective until you confirm it by viewing the diff), and "said contributor didn't even bother to include an edit summary" (many anons perform typo or spelling corrections without). Kimchi.sg 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per above concern about attitude towards anons. Furthermore, note that having the comment on the user page where anons who see it will likely be offended/turned off and admins are some of the people who will come into the most contact with new users. JoshuaZ 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments as well; in addition to my response above, I'd like to state that that is the exact reason I put it on my user page. I've been asked on my talk page before by the very anons who've I've reverted why I did it; this is an attempt to explain myself pre-emptively. If you feel it comes over in a negative way, I'd be more than happy to refactor the whole section. Thanks, dewet|✉ 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose Per JoshuaZ; if new users get the impression that anonymous editors are shot on sight, that doesn't really help Wikipedia. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments as well. In addition to what I've said to JoshuaZ, I will state categorically that anons are in no way shot on sight by myself; I invite you to confirm this in my contributions, but my idea throughout is to evoke discussion. Also, the rollback tool is not suitable for this. Thanks, dewet|✉ 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    That may not be your intention, but that definitely is not what it sounds like. I think it would be a good idea to remove it as it does come over in a negative way. joturner 05:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks again for the response; I've refactored the text somewhat to hopefully appear less negative and more constructive. dewet|✉ 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    That looks better, in my opinion. joturner 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Well, thanks for changing it at least; it probably wasn't your intention, but you could come off hostile to people who visit a page saying "We don't like anons!" Also, your edits are spaced well; I just have one last bone to pick in the fact that you say yourself "I don't in any way see me as a full-time RC or AfD patroller." Well, I'm not saying that only AfD and RC patrollers need SysOp rights, but there are tools that provide a rollback button without you being an admin. So a little more insight into why you need the priviledges would be helpful. And finally, there is the issue of project edits; I'm not one to oppose on base of edits, but you may want to consider involving yourself more at aforementioned AfD, MfD, MiscfD, etc. Anyway, hope all goes well! Master of Puppets That's hot. 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose More experince would be better - low project contributions and looks like a lot of his edits are reverts. --Doc ask? 09:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose due to lack of Wikipedia space edits, suggests that policy knowledge may not be up to admin standards. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per WP:BITE concerns. DGX 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Since I was invited here to furthur comment on this RFA, I will assume good faith and do so. I feel this editor has a ton of potential as an admin, but his semi-agressive tone with new editors is a little problem. Wikipedia namespace edit count is fairly low. I would suggest taking time to get more involved with the process of Wikipedia namespace like AFD/CFD/TFD etc. Try to find the time to make actual article contributions rather than reverts of vandalism. Great article editing can always change the way editors see your POV toward a situation. Please, if this nomination doesn't pass, try again in 2-3 months and I will surely vote support. DGX 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per WP:BITE concerns -- Tawker 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose after reading this archive in its entirety. What sealed it were the words "purposely obtuse" (in this diff) directed at a longtime editor who has done a great deal of good work to clarify page naming guidelines. Jonathunder 21:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for commenting. Of course, its completely your prerogative to use that incident against me, since I did bring it up in my answers below. However, the three things that stand out for me is: (1) The debate was extremely passionate, since it was a South African topic and most regular contributors jumped in; (2) It happened well over a year ago, and I'm certain I learned a lot from that to temper my behaviour in the mean time — I cannot recall any other incident since where things have flared up that badly; (3) I am not harbouring any resentment towards PBS — in fact, I consider him a valuable resource, and he has even pointed me to new articles that I can research — and I do believe the same is true on his side. I've asked him to comment here as well. Thanks, dewet|✉ 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    "One swallow does not make a summer". There is a steep learning curve on Wikipedia talk pages, and many of us, with no less passion approach advocacy on talk pages differently with time. Dewet and I may hold a different POV on some issues but as the link above shows, we are able to use that to help create better Wikipedia articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Jonathunder above. Sounds rather stubborn, and I'm concerned he might apply admin tools too aggressively or get involved in a wheel war. --Elkman - (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you as well. In addition to my response to Johnathunder above, I'd like to bring up the fact that I've never been even warned for violating the 3RR or for incivility; as I've tried to highlight in my third answer below, I try to find middle ground or acceptable compromise — not steamrollering. Even my nom has said that of me. I urge you to judge me by my actions, which speak for themselves! Thanks, dewet|✉ 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm a bit flabbergasted at Dewet being characterised as stubborn, aggressive or likely to get involved in a wheel war. That is not my experience of him at all, please look at his contributions. Regards, Elf-friend 11:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. As of now, I am concerned about his understanding of the wiki-concept in totality. --Bhadani 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Copy of his message from my talk page - to avoid the discussion getting fragmented: Hi; truly thanks for taking time to vote on my RfA. However, your comment makes no sense to me, and I'd really appreciate it if you could expand a bit on it. As you may have seen, I've tried to address others' concerns on the page, and I'd be happy to address yours too if you give me a bit more to work with. Thanks, dewet. --Bhadani 11:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose if all you want to do is revert, then you don't need admin tools. Popups is perfectly adequate for that. Cynical 12:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above; I just have a bad feeling about this user. Ral315 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for admin privileges not needed per answer to Q1. Keep up the good work as an editor! GChriss 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose There are concerns here expressed regarding editor's attitude toward anons and his inexperience in wiki-space. I believe firmly that rectifying the latter will mollify the former, and so I endorse the view that more time is needed in this case. Xoloz 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, as I'm convinced there are real WP:BITE issues. I might be convinced otherwise if there were extenuating circumstances, but I looked through edit history to figure out how Dewet's attitude toward newbies is reflect in his edits and found this edit. In my view, edits made with popups with no summary reflect likely edits made with rollback, and this edit seems to be treating as vandalism an effort by an anon to improve the content of the article. Admins have to bend over backward to be nice, even when it takes extra time, and there's too little of that on Wikipedia as it is. -- SCZenz 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for the feedback. On that specific edit, I can only claim mea culpa; as a side-effect, though, what it did do, was to get the editor following me (who seems much more knowledgeable in that field) to fix it with a suitable description. In my defense, I have started proactively to prevent these kinds of mistakes: Firstly, I have started trimming down my watchlist to items which I actually know something about (prehistory not being counted under that category, and being removed), and secondly, I have simply started to let edits slide when I know I cannot make a determination about its worth — as an example, I'd rather ask a knowledgeable editor to review additions. Thanks, dewet|✉ 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    As someone who edits in physics, I would like to emphasize that (in my field at least) the people who know the most (i.e. faculty at universities) are very unlikely to have accounts, so anonymous edits may sometimes be quite accurate. In any case, I commend your willingness to listen to suggestions; if this RfA doesn't achieve consensus and you're re-nominated (after a few months of taking suggestions into account and gaining experience), I would be quite likely to reconsider my position. -- SCZenz 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the advice. I must admit that I tend to stay away from specialised fields of knowledge where I cannot constructively contribute (random page copyedits excepted), so for the most part I can validate contributions. But I'll definitely be more careful. dewet|✉ 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per issues raised above. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 10:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oops, really sorry about that... wierdly enough, I did a ctrl+f search for my signature and came up empty on this RFA, so I voted. Guess I'll have to pay more attention in the future. >_< And really sorry to Dewet, who must think I hate him by now; I don't, really. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. I'm just not convinced he's right for the position. Royboycrashfan 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose New users are the life blood of the project, the original text on his userpage was a little over the top and the change came only under some pressure from this RFA. It would have been nice to see the adjustment occur before it drew so much attention. Also, I'm not crazy about this remark, I don't think editors opposing here would agree that they are just following the crowd. And in general I'm also not crazy about all the questioning of votes he and others have done on various opposers talk pages. Rx StrangeLove 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    I completely agree, and I've never not agreed with that sentiment. If I've broken some unwritten rule where I cannot question or ask for feedback on my RfA, then I apologise. I've acted in good faith throughout, and expected it from everyone who contributes here. My comment to SCZenz was at a time when I felt quite despondent, since it seems like everyone just takes one standpoint based on what somebody else said (cf. Joturner's axiom 26). I've tried to ask everyone who voted oppose to give me some direction — I don't claim to be perfect — but very few actually came back and answered me. I am flexible: for that exact reason I have changed my user page — not because I am under pressure, but because I can appreciate the different viewpoints brought here that it could be hurtful to some people. The reason it changed only now is because it has only become an issue now — never before have I experience such a backlash against something that (at least to me) seems simple. And finally, I still maintain that WP:BITE is a non-issue; besides what was on my user page, nobody provided any diffs or somesuch to show me what I can change. In fact, I've provided evidence to support the opposite. dewet|✉ 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per the above concerns.--cj | talk 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose and advise candidate to diversify his contributions by both namespace and topic. — May. 24, '06 [10:17] <freak|talk>

Neutral

  1. Per WP:BITE concerns. Will support future RfAs when there is an improvement in attitude towards newbies. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking time to post feedback; however, I would (again) like to state that I have no anti-anon bias. I have welcomed numerous anons personally ([1] as a good example, also [2], [3], [4], [5]; all of these in the past ~2 months), whom I'd like to believe did become members of our community. I have also reworked the section in question — do you still feel that it is too aggressive, or can you suggest other improvements? Thanks again, dewet|✉ 12:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    That's a quick reply. I'll look into this again in a while. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. More edits at project pages will be better, but I do not oppose.--Jusjih 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, doesn't really have that many edits for 2 years and bias against anons while hard to avoid isn't a great trait. However I think user could do a good job with adminship. Gateman1997 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I've had a change of heart on my oppose vote. I still don't think I can support, but the concern seems a bit petty to me now. —CuiviénenT|C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 01:18 UTC
  5. Neutral, a few concerns here, by no means a bad candidate but would prefer to see the oppose points addressed before a strong RfA #2 in a couple of months. Deizio talk 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Seems sensible, but the WP:BITE stuff coming from people who usually are of sound judgement, and the fact all he wants to do is revert, make me vote "Go Team Switzerland" on this one. Proto||type 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - if it weren't for the concerns about your attitude towards the newbies (remember, everyone was a newbie once, even you), I wouldn't have a problem supporting you. Alphax τεχ 05:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - While I would always like to help out a fellow South African, I am a little concerned. I tend to vote very conservatively when it comes to awarding adminship, so this has nothing to do with the new user controversy. I am more concerned by what Dewet would do with his admin powers if he had them. His post on the topic seemed to indicate that he would not actively participate in some of the activities admins are sometimes expected to partake in. So I suppose I would like clarification before I can vote anything but neutral. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username        Dewet
Total edits     2800
Distinct pages edited   1324
Average edits/page      2.115
First edit      16:50, September 10, 2004
        
(main)  1854
Talk    248
User    111
User talk       421
Image   13
MediaWiki talk  1
Template        16
Template talk   1
Category        5
Wikipedia       115
Wikipedia talk  13
Portal  2
 G.He 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Dewet (over the 2713 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 585 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 10, September, 2004
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 84.12% Minor edits: 80.04%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 90.2% Minor article edits: 90.32%
Average edits per day (current): 4.64
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 6.78% (184)
Unique pages edited: 1204 | Average edits per page: 2.25 | Edits on top: 12.61%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 20.72%
Minor edits (non reverts): 46.41%
Marked reverts: 28.64%
Unmarked edits: 4.24%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 67.31% (1826) | Article talk: 9.03% (245)
User: 3.91% (106) | User talk: 14.12% (383)
Wikipedia: 3.69% (100) | Wikipedia talk: 0.48% (13)
Image: 0.55% (15)
Template: 0.59% (16)
Category: 0.18% (5)
Portal: 0.07% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.07% (2)

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:

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.
A: I don't in any way see me as a full-time RC or AfD patroller; I try to focus on content, layout and the encyclopædia. That said, however, I often long for the ability to do a quick rollback (since popups/firefox seem to be inconsistent in their stability sometimes) on articles in my watchlist — I seem to be interested in such eclectic articles that draw vandals like a magnet. Also, I have struggled to get some page moves done over existing redirects (since I like to organise disambig pages sometimes). In summary: its for the 5% of times when it'd be incredibly useful to have admin abilities, not for the 95% of normal work that I do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I like to translate articles to and from Afrikaans (see my contributions and my user page for examples), copyediting promising and non-MoS-conformant articles ([6] [7] [8] as a few examples), researching and expanding stubs or starting new articles (for example, Afrikaans Language Monument, Huguenot Monument, Acacia erioloba, George Weideman, 2006 Table Mountain fire) — including any photography and images related to the subject — about various things that may hold my interest at the moment.
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: Certainly. For instance, on Battle of Spion Kop, there was a protracted and heated argument as to whether it should be moved to what would today be the correct name of the article ("Battle of Spioenkop"), in much the same debate as happened on the renaming of Kolkata. The discussion can be seen at Talk:Battle of Spion Kop/Archive 1, and I feel that I acted level-headed and professionally with the editors there. I try to find a middle ground ([9] after discussion) and therefore tend toward being inclusionistic and representativistic(!). I've interacted with editors on the left and right ends of the South African historic and political spectrum in trying to find middle and NPOV grounds. I've questioned other editors when I feel that they've erred (Talk:Before Christ), but always kept it friendly, if not at least civil.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.