Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angusmclellan

Angusmclellan

Voice your opinion (59/0/1); Scheduled to end 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate myself. I have been editing Wikipedia regularly since the start of 2006. I also edit as Amcl (talk · contribs), using WP:AWB to implement WP:CFD/W changes. I don't think I've been too dim, too often. I have done things I'd change and I've had to eat my words more than once. I have reported some persistent vandals to WP:AIV, added to the WP:CSD backlogs, pontificated at WP:AFD and WP:DRV from time to time, and even closed some AFDs. I've also closed a heap of things at WP:CFD, not entirely in line with WP:DPR it's true, but I haven't had that many complaints. I've contributed to featured and good articles, written lots of stubs, created redirects and disambiguation pages, categorised things, and done other maintenance tasks. I've convinced myself that I'm usually civil-ish, and not too WP:BITEy, but I might be wrong. If I were granted sysop rights I probably wouldn't be using them every day, but there are things I could do which would help out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: CFD first of all, and perhaps WP:CFDU too. WP:CP could do with some spring cleaning. I'd help out if there were backlogs at other XFD areas, WP:RFPP, WP:PER, WP:AIV, and article categories of WP:CSD, although those things get quite a lot of attention as is. I don't have much experience of image policy in action, but I'd like to help out there. I would start on the easier things, like the large numbers of {{ncd}}- and {{nrd}}-tagged images, and moving on to {{rfu}} ones once I was sure I understood the process. I enjoy article writing and translating, and don't propose to stop if I should become an administrator. So, between CFD, CP, simple image-related clean-up, and general editing, there would be more than enough to keep me busy for a while.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm happy with the work I've done at CFD, even if it wasn't done strictly according the Rules. Of the articles I've worked on, I'm rather pleased with Óengus I of the Picts, which I started as a stub in March 2005 and helped work up into a featured article. There's a list of the pages I've written, translated, or significantly revised on my user page for people who like that kind of thing. Lately I've been working off and on to get Flann Sinna up to FA standard. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of things I've done that I'm not at all happy with. In retrospect the ISO 693 language templates were a really, really bad idea, and I've managed to bite at least one new editor by slapping an inappropriate {{attack}} tag on their user page. I'm certain there will be other blunders out there.

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 had, do have, and will have disagreements with other editors, but disagreements are unavoidable in a collaborative project and only unreasonable people can expect to have their arguments accepted every time. Having said that, I'm surprised at how uneventful my time here has been. I don't have any particular peace-making triumphs to point to, but I haven't had any long-term conflicts with other editors either. Probably the longest-running dispute - me against the world it seems - is over the origins of Dál Riata. It's not something I can get worked up about so I've left it alone for now. There are over a million articles to work on, and millions more still to be written. It's easy enough to find something else to work, so why get stressed? Only fanatics can't change their minds and won't change the subject.

General comments

• See Angusmclellan's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Good edior, got nomintated - must be good. Twenty Years 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, this is a self-nomination. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   This user has made several of these edits, all identical, on other RFA's, in a 2 minute span. Just thought I'd mention it. The Rambling Man 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

   Why is that important? You don't need a meaningful rationale for a Support vote, only for an Oppose. Twenty Years is entitled to support whichever candidates he/she wishes, and there's no rule against Xeroxing your votes. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong Support Even though I have never met you, you are a great and capable user, 100% edit summary usage, approximately 24000 edits which 14K in the Mainspace, definitely can be trusted. Good luck! Tellyaddict 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support a very good editor with massive contributions across wikispace and the mainspace. Good luck. The Rambling Man 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Surely admins are needed at the area of expertise of Angusmclellan. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I really think I have absolutely no doubt. Seen Angus all over the place and has always left a good impression. Bubba hotep 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Great user, will make a good admin. - Anas ^talk? 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Always been impressed by his work around here, appears level-headed. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Never seen you around (or at least I don't remember), but you look like an excellent editor from your work. · AO ^Talk 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Aye nae tother a' ball--Doc^g 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Genuine cliche moment, actually. Xoloz 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I've only ever seen good things from Angus, so I expect he'll make a good administrator. Good luck! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Same reasoning as Bubba hotep. Xiner (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Total Support - I've seen Angus on here for years around Irish articles. Flawless editor and will make an excellent admin - Alison^☺ 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong support good self-nomination and contributions. Plus, I thought this user was already an admin. Acalamari 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Duh. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Obvious support. Been around long enough to know the ropes; no demonstrated tendency to cause any trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
17. — Lost^(talk) 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Support of course.-- danntm ^T _C 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. I've run across this user's contributions a few times and been pleased. I don't see any issues. Rigadoun (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. Michael 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong Support, asset to CFD, and after RobertG's departure he almost IS CFD, the sooner we give him the tools the better! I'll write a long co-nom esque support if need be :)--Wizardman 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. - Denny 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Support No problems here, would make a good admin. (aeropagitica) 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Support a fine user. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
28. Support All good and superb. Pig^man 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Support No reason not to. -- Nick ^t 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Support, nothing objectionable as far as I am concerned. SorryGuy 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
31. Support, no reason to oppose. I have seen some requests for protected edits that would not be needed with the sysop bit, which is a clear justification for tools. CMummert · talk 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Good job! --Infrangible 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Good editor, quite civil, rather productive (lately about 160 edits per day). I did run across him in connection with a CfD vote. He says above "I've also closed a heap of things at WP:CFD, not entirely in line with WP:DPR it's true.." If he does get elected admin, I hope he seriously follows the deletion process. I think his closure of the deletion debate on Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor was a bit eccentric. Nonetheless I'm supporting. I'm aware that there's a shortage of people willing to close CfDs, and it's a necessary but thankless task. EdJohnston 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
34. Support--MONGO 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
35. Support He can be absolutely trusted with the tools. He'll be a good admin. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 06:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
36. Support appears trustworthy enough for the job. RFerreira 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
37. Support An excellent editor and will make a fine sysop. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Everyking 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
39. I have no problems with that. >Radiant< 09:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Support exemplary editor. Catchpole 10:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
41. Support per above and the FA push of the king of Picts. Wooyi 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - Angus for us. Very trustworthy and will make a good sysop. -- Jreferee 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Nothing more I can add, really. Shimeru 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. I don't think I've had any interaction with Angus, but his contributions look good enough that I'm willing to play a hunch here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Obviously. --Folantin 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
46. Support He welcomed me to Wikipedia when I first started contributing, so it's a name I've kept an eye open for ever since - his contributions show him to be mop-trustworthy. Bencherlite 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Good, hardworking and levelheaded editor. I would trust him with the tools. --Elonka 01:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. I've seen Angus around and I trust him. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
49. Support definitely, trustworthy, capable, civil. – Riana ^ऋ 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Trustworthy and friendly. Fram 14:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
51. Terence 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
52. Support seems trustworthy of the tools. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
53. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
54. Support - experienced, fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
55. Support - I revewed his edits--he seems neutral and observant. --TigranTheGreat 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
56. Support, Lakers 03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
57. Strong support --Guinnog 09:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
58. Strong support Angus, I would have nominated you if I had known you were planning to ask for a mop. Durova^Charge! 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
59. Support - I have only had good interactions with this candidate. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Couple of questions — I've got a couple of questions for you:
   • You wrote: "I'm happy with the work I've done at CFD, even if it wasn't done strictly according the Rules..." — So, which rules did you bend? Generally, under which circumstances do you think it would be acceptable for an administrator to bend the rules?
   • In particular, do you think there are circumstances where wikipedians should not feel obliged to comply with wp:civ? I come across an increasing number of wikipedians who might give lip service to complying with wp:civ, but have some kind of rationalization for why they shouldn't feel obliged to wp:civ under this or that circumstances. I'd prefer that we refrain from promoting any more wikipedians to administrator who think wp:civ doesn't apply to them. But if you are committed to complying with the wikipedia's policies, then best wishes. -- Geo Swan 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   For the first question, Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions says non-admins should only close unambiguous keep decisions. The simple, but far from elegant, nature of the wiki category system means that many things which would be done in article space by normal editing such as merges, redirects, and moves, need to be listed at CFD. With the exception of a couple of closes when I started, including the one mentioned by Ed, I've generally closed only unambiguous decisions, whether the result was keep, merge, rename, delete, listify, or something else.

   For the second question, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF are needed to keep this collaborative project running as smoothly as possible and they have apply to everyone. I'm willing to make exceptions in some circumstances, but not for myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)