Oppose

Oppose, per the below text taken from his userpage, which suggests that he inherently assumes ill faith of anonymous users. —Cuiviénen^T|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). —Cuiviénen^T|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)[reply]

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. —Cuiviénen^T|C|M, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 23:47 UTC

Moved to Neutral. —Cuiviénen^T|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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

4. 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   That looks better, in my opinion. joturner 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose More experince would be batter - low project contributions and looks like a lot of his edits are reverts. --Doc ^ask? 09:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
7. Oppose Per WP:BITE concerns. DGX 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

8. Oppose per WP:BITE concerns -- Tawker 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

12. Oppose. As of now, I am concerned about his understanding of the wiki-concept in totality. --Bhadani 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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)[reply]
14. Oppose per above; I just have a bad feeling about this user. Ral315 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   That's a quick reply. I'll look into this again in a while. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral. More edits at project pages will be better, but I do not oppose.--Jusjih 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Cuiviénen^T|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)[reply]
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)[reply]
7. Neutral not sure now Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments All user's edits.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

• See Dewet's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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.