Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Angus Lepper
'''Ended (27/12/6); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (banana) 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)'''

- 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 &mdash; 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)

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: &mdash; 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 &mdash; even the best Wikipedians can lose their head sometimes, and edit wars can be at least as destructive as a vandal &mdash; 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: &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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: &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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.


 * Optional question from O (talk)
 * 4. Why would you [ change a redirect that's not broken]?
 * A: &mdash; Good point. I saw the redirect when I was looking for information on something (reading rather than editing), and since I knew I'd merged idempotence (computer science) into idempotence a few weeks ago (they describe exactly the same subject, with no need for a separate computer science page), I saw the redirect and went to change it; primarily because the disambiguation of the title wasn't necessary any more, and partly because I'd misread the word as idempotence (rather than idempotent) and thought I was avoiding a redirect (end result was that the edit was, I guess, somewhat unnecessary).

General comments

 * See Angus Lepper's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Angus Lepper:

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

Discussion


Support Oppose
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. —  «  A NIMUM   »  00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) 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.  Lra drama 10:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. No reason not to. —AldeBaer (c) 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. You haven't been active for long and don't have the highest edit count, but quality is more important than quantity. Bart133 (t) (c) 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Quality and dedication is what matters. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Below 3000 edits is a bit too low in my books to support but seeing that the oppose reasons given are how you say 'silly' and that your contribution has been excellent and you have a very well presented RfA, I will support you..good luck..-- Cometstyles 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I view this self-nominated candidate as competent enough to be an administrator. Power to those who desire it!   New   England  (C) (H) 01:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Good division of edits across areas of Wikipedia overrules low experience. Captain   panda  03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - agree with the oppose 'votes' that he lacks experience, however don't honestly believe he would run into difficulties if given the mop. Addhoc 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support good answers to questions, demonstrates a need for the tools. but has stuff to learn (as we all do). I don't see how we can't trust this user with the mop. ( [ →]O - RLY?) 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support nothing wrong with this user. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 16:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per Cap'n Panda. A newish user may do well despite their lack of experience. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Per User:Acalamari plus that User:Angus Lepper likes to revert vandalisms. NHRHS2010  Talk  19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, as a prima facie power-hungry admin myself. Could use the tool, clearly knows what he's doing, probably not a mental. Neil   ╦  09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and this user seems to be sane, qualified, and just the sort of person who would use the tools, given his speedy and Afd work. I say give it to him. -- The_socialist talk? 03:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools Davewild 07:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support -- been here ages, deserves mop. I've seen his contribs. I hope this passes. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - A veteran who could easily make a difference, paying attention to what is usually missed.  •Malinaccier•   T / C  14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Satisfactory experience; a review of his edits and the opposition below do not bring to light any concrete problems that would suggest he is not ready. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - looks good, no reason to distrust. - eo 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - Looks like a good editor to me. Good experience and number of edits.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Great attitude towards improvement, may not have that much time when you count the months, but the time in hours looks good to me.  Citi Cat   ♫ 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Weak support, answers are good enough that I can overlook mediocre experience. Wizardman  23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Heart is in the right place, but your experience is not.  Jmlk  1  7  02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral Oppose I'm not too sure if this user has enough experience. --H| H irohisat  Talk 04:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A regretful oppopse. It seems you are on the right track but with only three months of truly active editing and almost no experiance that I can find in policy or guidline discussion I can't support you. If you stay active in AIV, AfD, ANI, continue to contribute quality mainspace material, continue active community discussion all you should really have to do is get involved in policy and guidline work, or at least show a solid grasp of it. I have no doubt that I'll be able to support you in four to six months. Thanks for all the great work so far. NeoFreak 16:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Formerly indented by order of the Cabal™. -- Y not? 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Three months of consistent activity simply isn't long enough. I'll support in another few months, but not right now. - Krakatoa  Katie  05:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A few more months, a few more edits. -- Y not? 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Some general experience concerns.  Daniel  04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose given inexperience, especially in Wiki-space, home to so many admin-related tasks. Xoloz 20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Insufficient experience to trust with the tools. Is normally marking speedy deletion taggings as minor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&target=Angus_Lepper deleted contribs), which they certainly are not.  I recommend he spend some time on major content expansions so we can judge his article writing skills.  Taking some AFDs, doing some Heymann standard contributions would be one way.  Since he says he uses the random article button a lot, no doubt he can find plenty of other needy articles that way.  Similarly, some time responding to request for comments would let us judge dispute participation.  Use of TW and other scripted tools can drive up the edit count, but doesn't actually produce a track record of how the user thinks for themself.  GRBerry 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I have been watching the progress of this AfD, I've refrained from commenting as I didn't feel it necessary for the most part. On this case, I feel a small clarification for part of your comment might be necessary: as regards marking speedy deletion taggings as minor, this is largely because WP:TWINKLE seems to do this by default (I agree that they shouldn't be marked as minor, and it is a fault on my part that I hadn't checked until you brought it up just now). I hadn't seen that it did so, and I will now check to see if there is a setting to change this, and if not, then I will tweak the Javascript as necessary. (I realise this comment is in response to only a relatively insignificant part of the comment, but I feel it needs said) Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose; others have pointed out the user's relative inexperience. A quick trawl found this edit which was a perfectly good reversion of an insertion of (incorrect) original research/opinion to the Scotland page. However, he neither warned the anon user nor examined their other edits, at least a couple of which were problematic. If this was a one-off error I have found, I might reconsider as I see Angus as a very good user. If not, take the advice you've been given here on board and come back in a couple of months for a better outcome. Best wishes to you, --John 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My general policy is thus: if I warn a user for vandalism, then I will warn them, check the whois information (if it looks like it might be useful &mdash; if it's obvious that an IP is static, or definitely dynamic, or if it is registered to a school or business &mdash; then I'll add the information to the page), and then check the user's contributions. I'll check every edit where they have the last edit to the page, and if it is vandalism, revert.
 * However, for edits such as that, which don't quite qualify as blatant vandalism (unsourced, non-neutral point of view, etc.), I will usually revert the first time, explaining in the edit summary. If I then encounter that user again, on the same page or elsewhere, then I will give them a friendly warning on their talkpage and cast a quick eye over their contribs to see if this looks like a pattern. I'm probably a little less likely to point out policies to anonymous users for edits like this, unless I can see it's a consistent behaviour, because, in my experience, anons tend to make a few edits before leaving and not visiting again (there are a few counter-examples, I'm aware, but this is often the case).
 * I appreciate the feedback, though, and I'll amend this policy in future such that I mention to the user every time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I agree that more experience would be desirable. I would like to have seen more XfD and policy-related edits to be sure the candidate has a full understanding of the areas. WjBscribe 07:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough experience, per everyone above. Users learn a lot about rules, sockpuppets, vandalism, consensus, NPOV, everything through editing over a period of time.  Admins have a subtle job sometimes, and the applicant just doesn't exhibit the nuanced understanding of the job yet.  On the right track to be honest, just not there.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Lack of experience and encyclopaedic contributions. per GRBerry, marking speedy delete tags as minor edits does raise concerns over the use of admin tools.--Bryson 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Yes, he does quality work, but I'm not too sure if this user has enough experience. --H| H irohisat  Talk 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 4) Neutral Seems a good, reliable editor, but just hasn't been around for very long, so I'm not sure. Tim Vickers 00:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Very good start, but need to see a bit more editing especially in the project space to demonstrate a good understanding of policy. Look forward to supporting later. Shell babelfish 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Not yet ready--almost no XfD or other policy-related work until very recently. Just needs more experience.DGG (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Nautral Strong answers, but the user lacks encyclopaedic contributions and seems more interested in becoming a traffic cop .--Bryson 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to oppose.--Bryson 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.