Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Pegasus1138

Final (4/14/1) ended 02:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) – I'm Pegasus1138 and I think I'd make a good administrator because I have a good number of edits on all sections of Wikipedia. I'm an active article editor as well as knowing how Wikipedia is run both the policies and the little details of how things work around here.Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, a good editor, would make a good admin. --Rory096(block) 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moral support - amiable Wikipedian yet not ready yet. Please try again in a couple of months :). --Celestianpower háblame 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Has made a substantial amount of wikipedia namespace edits. I consider the length of time on wikipedia to be irrelevant. A good user with 300+ WP: edits to me proves that they have the necessary experience to be an admin. DarthVader 23:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - I'm assuming good faith here. I think the issues that Splash raises are not fatal to this nomination. - Richardcavell 01:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, quite strongly. Barely 2 months old is substantially too short, as a self-nom should be very well aware. This is particuarly true, when on his first RfA, less than a month ago, he said "...I will try again in a few months". Suggests very over-eager for the buttons. Also, just 3 days ago, a fairly major error of process and behaviour: Template:Future tvshow he tagged as PROD (for violating WP:NOT)[1], that was removed, and so he instead tagged it speedy as "crystal ball",[2] insisting on ANI, in the face of well-reasoned editors, that anything that WP:NOT is a speedy because it violates policy.[3] Having managed to have it erroneously deleted, he went and removed almost 100 usages of it from articles. This gets PROD wrong, CSD wrong, and NOT wrong, not to mention listening to people when they tell you are wrong. The template is now on TfD where it is being overwhelmingly retained since the template itself plainly does not violate any policy at all. It appeared [4] that the editor was essentially unaware of the purpose of TfD also. Generally very forceful behaviour on that, coupled with serious errors of policy lead to me conclude that, had he had the buttons, he would have effected this completely incorrect deletion himself, without further consultation. Also a very odd manner of discussion in this diff, where, in the middle of a thread about additional questions/peer review for RfA, he suddenly brings up the deletion of VfD from a few months back, for no obvious reason. Not ready yet by several months, I think. This appears to have resulted from the non-existent feedback at Wikipedia:Editor review. -Splashtalk 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. I must agree with Splash. You don't have the necessary experience as it is, and you have had a RfA less than a month ago. Please, consider withdrawing this, doing good work for sometime longer (a few months, at least) and then resubmit. Redux 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per Splash. Part of the duties of an administrator are to try to dissolve disputes, and to be willing to compromise; that thread does not give me much confidence. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, I more than anyone understand eagerness to participate in a RfA. I made the same mistake as you Pegasus, made a RfA just a few months too early. Now, I'm most likely to get a successful RfA in early June - due to poor timing on my previous RfAs. At the moment, just try to use your normal rights as much as you can! Computerjoe's talk 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Splash TigerShark 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - dual self nom's less than a month ago worry me a little, Splash has some good points, can you work on addressing them then wait a few months for someone to nominate you, a few months and you'll likely fly on in -- Tawker 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Too soon also I remember having some conflct with him before with some April Fools jokes, to the point he was close to breaking 3rr, and rolling back admins [5] [6] [7] Jaranda wat's sup 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - self-nominating in the same week as the TfD debacle doesn't show very good judgement. Perhaps in a few months. —Whouk (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Per above. You can, however, become a good admin if you keep learning the processes and guidelines of wikipedia. Afonso Silva 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Splash. I, too, have observed unprofessionally aggressive behavior on the part of candidate. I would strongly suggest that editor open himself to constructive criticism from others, as much must change before he can be trusted with the mop. Xoloz 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per above and past unpleasantness encountered with this candidate. NSLE (T+C) at 00:54 UTC (2006-04-23)
  13. Oppose per above, and answer to question 1 seems to shout "KILL RAPE BLOCK REPEAT" at me, for some reason. Generally too soon. Esteffect 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Splash, and as with others I've had an unpleasant run-in with this candidate. If he can calm down a bit, take constructive criticism, and spend more time here, I might be willing to change my vote on a future RfA.-- SonicAD (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I like the user but I can't support on the facts presented by Splash. Moe ε 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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'd plan on closing AFD's as well as keeping an eye on the vandalism in progress page to review vandalism claims and block vandals. I would also make use of rollblack and blocking while doing RC patrol.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm pleased with my contributions to Megatokyo and Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny since I've put a fair amount of work into both and am working on Megatokyo to make it an eventual featured article.
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: Yes I have, I was in a dispute over Wikipedia:Wikiethics where I did end up getting stressed and in the end decided to step back from the conflict, I'm also currently involved in the dispute over Wikipedia:Now Hiring in which there's no real stress to be had since the conversations so far have remained fairly civil.
The above 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.