Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trusilver (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 21 July 2007 (→‎Discussion: neutral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Angus Lepper

Voice your opinion (talk page) (7/1/2); Scheduled to end 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Angus Lepper (talk · contribs) - Hey there. I first signed up in September '05 and made a handful of edits, before I was interrupted by real life. I then contributed a little anonymously from various IPs before going to sign up again late in 2006 and discovering I already had an account. Since then, I've contributed to Wikipedia in various capacities; a great deal of vandalism fighting and copyedit at recent changes patrol (greatly aided once I discovered Popups and TWINKLE to reduce some of the labour of this), but some article building as well, both from scratch and on existing articles (although I think I probably contribute best working as a quiet one of many editors building or greatly expanding a page). In short? I'm just here to help this place and hinder those who aren't — I greatly admire the idealistic concept of Wikipedia. I realise that some will oppose self-nominations for very excellent reasons, but I assure you that I am in no way under an illusion of glamour offered by adminship. It's the cleaning out the toilets that makes the hotel room bearable after all, right? Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: — Regularly checking WP:AIV, CAT:CSD and WP:RPP, as I feel that these are three of the staples for stopping some of the most damaging actions (high-tariff blatant vandalism and the less blatant edit wars — even the best Wikipedians can lose their head sometimes, and edit wars can be at least as destructive as a vandal — with or without wheels!) at source. These are, in general, well patrolled, but there have quite often been times that I have reported a vandal and found a list of a good half dozen or more reports to be dealt with. I would also intend to do some of the 'harder' work for which the responsibility is given to admins, such as attempt to establish consensus for closing XfDs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: — Personally, I'm quite fond of Wolfson Microelectronics, in terms of having managed to create a decent article from scratch and establish notability with sources whilst also maintaining an neutral point of view despite a (minimal, I hasten to add!) conflict of interest in that I'd had a highly successful work experience placement there. However, in terms of importance, I feel that vandal fighting is right up there in the most important, and therefore best, contributions that anyone can make. Wikipedia is a lot better than it should be by rights, because people are willing to fight the vandalism that drags it down and wastes time for those trying to improve the articles — which means that the encyclopaedia improves despite the levels of vandalism present.
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: — In general, I have successfully avoided most conflicts. However, I do feel that there are two incidents worth mentioning. The first would certainly be described as a conflict: I made this comment on a user's talk page (in reference to a fake 'new messages' box on their user page, redirecting to the Punk'd article), leading them to slap me with a vandalism3. This led to this discussion. I saught a third opinion, and was pointed to WP:TEMPLAR and advised to remove the warning but stay off the user's talk page. I see, in retrospect, that my initial edit was not so well thought-through (although I maintain the sentiments) in that I was simply agreeing with a fairly puerile comment. My only excuse is that it was late, and I wasn't thinking straight — however, I am proud that I stayed with a level head and managed to stay civil whilst discussing the issue with the other user involved. The second incident was a minor infraction of policy whilst on recent changes patrol: I saw significant removal of material without suitable edit summary explanation at the Mujahideen article from a number of anons. After requesting page protection, Theresa Knott pointed out to me that it seemed to be a content dispute; after realising this, and checking the talk page (as I should have done earlier), I reverted my changes (I'd been assuming vandalism and was so at something like 4 reverts, as opposed to 3RR) and apologised both to Ms. Knott and on the article talk page, before backing out. Again, I feel I kept an entirely cool head and come out of this fairly well, and mention it in the interests of full disclosure.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Angus Lepper before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - I have run over his contributions and I'm quite impressed. Granted he does not have the highest edit count ever, but remember quality of quantity. Article writing and Vandal fighting. He has been involved in both quite actively. I feel safe giving this user the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Exemplary contribs. A good example of an editor who doesn't need a high edit count to be a good admin candidate. J-stan Talk 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with above. Relatively low project space count, but excellent work done in it. I trust him. Giggy UCP 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I've seen him around and I'm sure he could use the tools. Heck edit count isn't everything: I know a bcrat whom I have more edits than. —« ANIMUM » 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support User does solid work at AFDs, see no problems with using the admin tools. Recurring dreams 02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I think he now has enough experience to be an admin. Lots of edits for the mainspace, mainspace talk and wikipedia space. Good interaction with other users. Always uses the edit summary. Good candidate. Lradrama 10:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Heart is in the right place, but your experience is not. Jmlk17 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to neutralOppose I'm not too sure if this user has enough experience. --Hirohisat Talk 04:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Yes, he does quality work, but I'm not too sure if this user has enough experience. --Hirohisat Talk 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Solid contributions to vandalism reversion and copy editing, but insufficient breadth of experience at this time to demonstrate appropriate knowledge of policies. Espresso Addict 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Espresso Addict just sufficiently explained my position for me. I think another two months and this RfA would sail by. Trusilver 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Angus_Lepper&oldid=146131889"