Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dumelow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dumelow[edit]

Final: (57/1/1); ended 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Dumelow (talk · contribs) – I encountered Dumelow through my work with the in the news (ITN) section of the main page, where he can usually be found nominating articles, making suggestions and generally using common sense. Dumelow first registered in 2006 and began actively editing in late 2007. In that time he has achieved a great deal: no fewer than 114 new articles (mainly on former presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers) and a large number of quality images which he has uploaded. Dumelow has shown an aptitude for article writing and an understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies by helping to promote two featured articles (Zanzibar Revolution and Anglo-Zanzibar War), seven good articles and 45 DYK articles, as well as his countless nominations and article expansions at ITN.

I have found this editor consistently helpful, courteous and intelligent. He generally keeps a low profile but is an effective voice of wisdom, reason and restraint on the pages he frequents. Just after I had acted on his umpteenth report on the main page error log I realised that it would be highly beneficial if Dumelow were able to make these edits himself! ITN desperately needs more administrators and Dumelow could step into this role with skill and competence.

In summary, Dumelow is an asset to Wikipedia and would be able to achieve even more with the extra tools. I commend him to the community. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Many thanks for your kind words Martin, I accept this nomination - Dumelow (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I expect that my initial admin tasks will be limited to WP:ITN, where I have some experience and admin actions are fairly routine (judging consensus and updating the ITN template). I would also like to get more involved in WP:DYK. I used to review potential DYK articles but haven't been involved much recently, however I do still nominate articles there and have noticed the occasional backlog. I would not jump straight in though but initially begin by returning to reviewing and working up to adding DYKs to the queues. I would also like to eventually work at WP:AIV which I encountered when I used to do recent changes patrol. Again, I don't plan to jump right in and start blocking people left, right and centre but feel that I need to re-familiarise myself with the AIV process beforehand. I used to comment on the occasional AFD as well but haven't had time recently and for that reason I can't see myself becoming active in that area as an admin.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I see that Martin has already done a fantastic job of summarising my contributions so I won't bore anyone with detail. I enjoy creating content for the project and that is the area in which most of my contributions lie. I am very pleased with how my two FAs worked out particularly as they were both little more than stubs with few (or no) references when I began editing them (1, 2). I am also proud of my GAs which are mainly on fairly obscure topics and four of which didn't exist before I created them. I do like editing fairly random topics which is why I enjoy WP:ITN so much as it gives me the opportunity to edit a nice variety of articles and bring them to a good enough standard to be on the main page.
However I feel that my single best contribution to the project is the creation of articles for past-presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers. They include 145 of the most eminent civil engineers of their time and when I started in 2007 only 36 had articles. Now 110 of them do. Whilst many of the articles I created are little more than stubs or start class most of them involved gathering information from many different sources to create a coherent biography of each man. It is this work which I think is my most valuable to Wikipedia as it improves our coverage of articles which may not be available elsewhere.
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: I have not really had many conflicts with other editors (aside from the usual insults from vandals) which is probably due to the fact that content creation doesn't lead to many controversial situations. I did once have an AFD request against an article that I created but that was due to me starting it in the mainspace and not having chance to expand or fully reference it. The AFD was closed as a keep as I had expanded the article by that time but I have solved this problem by always creating new articles in userspace and only moving them to mainspace when they are of sufficient standard.
There is potential for Wikipedia to cause stress although I have never really experienced any. I find that it is always sensible to remember that other users are human as well and treat them with the same respect and manners online as you would do in real life. This is almost always a helpful step in calming down an argument or defusing a situation. This is a policy I have always tried to adhere to and hope to continue to do so in the future.
Additional optional questions from Juliancolton
4. I've had some issues with In The News in the past, and whilst I won't hold this against you and I recognize that lots of great work is done over there, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about how that process could be further improved. Thanks in advance. :)
A: The problem with ITN is that it is based essentially on a "rating" of how important a topic is to determine whether it should be placed on the main page. Whilst this is not an ideal system none of the other solutions that I have seen have been any better (eg just importing the feed from Wikinews or using Google's top stories of the day) for various reasons. I don't think that we will ever settle on a perfect solution to the problem of subjectivity. I feel strongly that the process should be based primarily on a consensus of the community (as it is at present) and that the decision of what to place on our main page should come from within the project (ie Wikipedia) alone. I do acknowledge that the system has failed in the past and will probably fail again in the future but that so far a discussion of community members seems to be the best means at our disposal. Of course improvement can always be made by more users commenting over at WP:ITN/C so that we can ensure consensus, receive a wide spread of opinions and prevent any allegations of becoming just the mouthpiece of a handful of users (the ITN cabal!).
Additional optional questions from AtheWeatherman
5 What is your position on administrators open to recall?
A: I am strongly in favour of the community being able to remove access to the admin tools. It seems only fair that if it can grant them it can also take them away. If I pass this RFA I will add my name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and abide by the default process.
6 I notice you had a very inactive month in July of this year, and since this is pretty recent, could youexplain this lack of edits?
A: I cut back on my edits for a couple of months to allow me to get on with university and summer work. It was quite a busy period for me and I just didn't have the time to edit at my usual rate. I don't plan on having such a great workload in the future though (for my own sake).
Additional optional question from Epeefleche
7. Hypo: An admin closes a hotly contested AfD as "delete" a few hours before the 7 full days for debate and voting have passed. The nom then communicates with an upset "keep" voter that while they disagreed at the AfD: "That's the whole point of having uninvolved closers judge it". Closer examination reveals that the closer was the editor who nominated the nom at his RfA, and that the two have a robust working relationship (each is the other's top or near-top talk page visitor). Is that a conflict of interest? And if so, what should be done now that the closer has closed the AfD?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:It has been brought to my attention that this hypothetical situation is actually very similar to the subject of a current request for arbitration which you are involved in. This is a matter for the arbitrators and the involved parties to resolve amongst themselves and I wouldn't feel comfortable answering it (even hypothetically), sorry.
Additional optional questions from Rschen7754
8. Explain in your own words what a 3RR violation is and how 3RR should be enforced.
A:A 3RR violation occurs when a user makes more than three reverts on a single page (across all projectspaces) within 24 hours. The rule exists to provide a hard and fast definition of edit warring (with obvious exceptions eg vandalism reverts). Where it is broken an administrator should investigate the matter and usually block the user in question (typically for 24 hours in the first instance), unless there are exceptional circumstances (such as obviously accidental breaking of the rule or where the user has since stopped warring) where a talk page warning may be all that is warranted. Further violations of the rule may warrant longer blocks. I should also say that the 3RR is only one definition of an edit war and blocks for edit warring can be made where the 3RR has not been broken.
Additional optional questions from Rschen7754
9. What is your position regarding editors making poor edits that are not vandalism?
A: Such edits are fairly common occurrences. It is often fairly easy to improve on such edits in articles. Usually a web search will bring up a reliable source which can be added or the grammar/spelling can be corrected if that is the problem. Sometimes it is hard to discern the original meaning of the editor and in these cases it is helpful to ask on their talkpage to see what they meant. If needed (eg. on a BLP, the addition doesn't make clear sense or no RS can be found) the edit can easily be transferred to the article's talk page where it can be discussed. It can later be re-added to the article if it is improved and sourced enough. I try not to be too harsh against such editors particularly if they are new to the project or their first language is not English as they generally are editing in good faith and may not have known about certain areas of WP policy.
Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
10. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A:I have never created an alternative account and cannot see me ever needing to. However in the unlikely event that I do create such an account I will immediately inform the bureaucrats.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dumelow before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - Your virtues, as stated, are clear, and browsing through your last year of work was educational. A few cautionary words, if I may presume. It appears you have been largely occupied in some of the further reaches of the project. This is not a bad thing; Wikipedia needs editors like you, and with the tools you will be faster and more effective. The crunch will come when you go up against someone in a heated, controversial topic. If you should reach a point where you are under attack from one or more sources, it may be useful to walk away and/or seek advice elsewhere. It is always a special honor to be the first one to support a new candidate, and I wish you the very best in all you do. Jusdafax 14:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your kind words and good advice, I will bear it in mind for the future - Dumelow (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks back at'cha. Rereading just now what I wrote above, I started laughing. My wording comes off as a bit pompous and ceremonial... but ya never know what's coming when you are the very first to respond in an RfA. To phrase the current outlook in a less pedantic manner: 'Grats, mon! Jusdafax 00:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Very constructive contributions and no worries with regards to abuse of the mop! Polargeo (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. A great asset to ITN.  Cargoking  talk  15:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I've seen Dumelow around and he has always been doing something beneficial to the project. I have absolutely no issues with supporting this bid for the bits. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support. Content editor with no conflict history that I can find. Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support.Yep, No problems here at all. AtheWeatherman 16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Great work at ITN. We need more admins there. And since there are no issues outside this field, I am glad to support. --Tone 16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Not enough admins at ITN. This is the perfect candidate to help solve that problem. --candle•wicke 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support; trusted and valuable contributor. Reasonable answer to my question as an added bonus. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'm impressed by the range of skills: engineering, writing, consensus-building. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No problems here. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. The candidate is a helpful, level-headed editor. Majoreditor (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Looks good to me.--SPhilbrickT 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Looks good. Lack of conflict handling experience, but editing history seems to indicate a user that isn't very likely to abuse tools in a conflict. Gigs (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Why not? -FASTILYsock (TALK) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Everything is good here. Good luck. ~ Arjun 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Competent, clueful editor. Allowing Dumelow to continue his work with the extra buttons that the sysop user group supplies will only benefit the project. :) Good luck! –Katerenka ☆ 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Will make a good admin, no concerns. RP459 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support He needs the tools in ITN. Sole Soul (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Stephen 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Just took a quick look at his past 1,000 edits, and the only thing that stuck out was this, and it stuck out in a positive way. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious why that edit stuck out for you ... seems fairly run of the mill. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering the same. Perhaps civil engineer articles are subject to regular vandalism that goes unnoticed. --candle•wicke 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't the what, but the how. Dumelow believed it to be a good faith edit in the edit summary, which impressed me. Not all anons are vandals, some of them may become positive contributors, and edit summaries like the ones Dumelow put there increase the odds of converting counterproductive anons into productive ones. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - WP:ITN seems like it can be tough sometimes. I'm impressed by your 114 articles, and I see no reason to be concerned at all. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Pleased to support. I recognize this candidate from work at WP:ITN/C. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support-From what i read...He appears to be eligible for the admin crown...ARUNKUMAR P.RTalk 08:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The last word in your support is spelled c-u-r-s-e. :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support The nom and a quick review of contributions makes a strong case that Dumelow will be an immediately useful admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - An excellent contributor who can be trusted with the tools. Rje (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support This user would make an excellent admin.  Ilyushka88  talk  13:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Will do great with the tools. ~ Arjun 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already supported above. –xenotalk 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support This may be unanimous. Keepscases (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick, someone call Dougstech! We need him back here now! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, don't even joke about that! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Good, helpful editor. Positive track record includes collaboration with other editors at the FA level and lots of content contributed. Good luck, GlassCobra 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Fantastic contributions, clear idea of what they would use the tools for. It would take a strong negative to get me to oppose and I don't see even a weak one. -- Atama頭 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Should be a straightforward choice. Good luck ! Rkr1991 (Wanna chat?) 17:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Awesome contributions.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support – I'm not really that concerned about how Q7 is answered. (It's likely it will be a good answer.) I don't see any problems with this user not getting the tools. MuZemike 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Per your talk page—look at all those ITNs! That tells me you're both a productive contributor and have places where you'll the tools to good use. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Dumelow. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - can't say I've run into this user before, but all evidence available on a quick review suggests that admin tools would be well-deserved and well-used here. Great question answers, in particular. ~ mazca talk 20:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Good editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - not a whole lot to say that hasn't been said. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Looks good! Airplaneman talk 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Great contributions, thoughtful answers, calm temperament and cogent need for admin tools; has my trust. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Friendly editor, we need more of this kind.--yousaf465' 07:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --BorgQueen (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No issues here. Astronominov 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support He is a very impressive editor. Warrah (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support This user's good work at ITN, an area that badly needs more admin assistance, shows he can be trusted with the tools. GreenGourd (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Yup. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. What can I say that hasn't already been said?  GARDEN  14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support: An ideal candidate. Request that a sample of DNA be sent to Wikipedia for cloning purposes. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: Clearly an intelligent and able editor who will surely not misuse the tools. Pleasure to support. Oh, and he works in the same RL field as me, :-) Maedin\talk 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Will make a good admin. Pikiwyn talk 13:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that as it is my favorite holiday (Halloween), I am loathe to oppose, and in any event, candidate has significantly contributed to 7 good articles and written or expanded 45 DYKs (is here to build an encyclopedia and appreciates the work that goes into that). The candidate has also never even been accidentally blocked. While use of "non-notable" in an Afd is never compelling, the candidate is by and large correct in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Chapman (construction). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Wikipedian with a good editing credit. - Darwinek (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support- easily passes my usual standards; 3 years plus and no major issues; safe support. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: Seems impressive and extraordinary. South Bay (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - a good Wikipedian who I think will do well as an admin -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Yet another toothless recall pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion regarding this oppose moved to the talk page. –xenotalk 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Captandum Vulgaris: What is a recall pledge and how is it enforced? Is it simply a ploy to "capture the will of the crowd"? - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I'm glad that recently several strong content contributors have run for adminship, and impressed by the candidate's good accomplishment with several GA and many DYKs. However, the editor was barely active for the past three month from June to August, and he dose not seem to use discussion very much in contrast of his article edits. Since adminship requires significant engagement and responsive attitudes with a good communication for editors here, I'm a bit worried as to whether he would effectively perform administrative actions with the mops. So I'm sticking here.--Caspian blue 03:01, 30 October 2009 (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/Dumelow&oldid=1147982025"