Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 3

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.

Pegasus1138

Final (31/26/9) ended 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) – I'm Pegasus1138 and I think I would make a good administrator since I have a good tempermate, am always civil, and I know policy and guidelines well as well as how things work around here. For the sake of transparency I'll note her that this is my third nom (1st nom, 2nd nom) both of which failed primarily due to inexperience however I have been around longer now and have much more experience and feel that I would now make a good administrator. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I should point out that I was Pegasus1138 was on my shortlist of nominations, I've just been a little swamped and haven't gotten around to the paperwork. My nomination statement would be basically what he wrote so feel free to consider this a nomination -- Tawker 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Despite concern addressed in comments below, I think his work on Wikipedia is enough for me to support. NSLE (T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-30)
  2. Support despite short time since last nomination (time between nominations doesn't relate to admin abilities) and not-so-long tenure. joturner 03:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support i've seen this person around in a few places, and certainly deem them worthy of adminship. good luck.--Alhutch 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - April Fools is well, April Fools, and not the other 365 days of a year. Will make good use of the tools (and alreayd has the rate NSLE support which is good enough for me) -- Tawker 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Will be great. Yanksox
  6. Support despite inability to spell "temperament". ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Edit Conflict Support, meets my standards. --Terence Ong 04:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support. Great user. Seen this user around and seems very dedicated. :) G.He 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Meets my standards by a mile. DarthVader 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Just because he was here a month ago doesn't mean he won't be a good admin. --Rory096 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - good vandal fighter, would benefit from the tools abakharev 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Haves seen this user around many times and appears to be ready for adminship. -- Tangotango 06:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per Tango. -?Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, don't see why repeated self-noms shoudl be held against someone. The Land 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support I see nothing wrong in repeating self-noms after a one month period. I thought that this was the bare minimum time-frame for RfAs and the bare minimum time-frame for RfB is a 3 month period. This, at least to me, shows that the user is eager to serve Wikipedia in a more broader role. This can only be a positive thing for this project at large. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support ForestH2
  17. Strong support. If he is a good editor, and he is impatient to help the community; then I do not see any reason for denying him the tools. --Andy123 candy? 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per Ani and Tawker. Joe 15:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Lapinmies 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Meets my standards, and per Tawker.--digital_me(t/c) 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support He helped me with some stuff. Very good at what he is doing. Per Ani and Tawker. FellowWikipedian 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, does good work. A bit more patience wrt RfA would be nice, though. Kusma (??) 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support . froggy 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    This vote was added by 198.22.123.105 (talk · contribs). Kusma (??) 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uninsureddriver (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    This user's only edits were establishing blue links for user and user talk page, voting here and unstriking the IP vote. Kusma (??) 01:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually I'd be surprised if this user and the IP directly above are not the same person. Kusma (??) 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. He is good editor, and good vandal catcher. Daniel5127, 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - Liberatore(T) 12:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. This editor will make a great administrator one day. If things do not work out this time, please allow me to renominate you next quarter. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Pepsidrinka 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Stif1e 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    This was this user's 2nd edit, and the user is blocked indefinitely as an impersonator of, well, me. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Sure. Poloyoe 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. -- Mostly Rainy 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support -- The main reason to oppose seems to be that he took the initiative to nominate himself. I don't have a problem with that. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. March 24... April 23... May 30... Three noms in three months is not too appealing to me. I do like Pegasus (nice, good editor, etc), but seems a bit to impatient. Other editors have said they would nominate you in good time, yet you still didn't wait. Unfortunately, this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I'd say just keep up the good work and wait a bit longer before another try. Sorry... oppose. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Addendum: I am also a little wary of Pegasus' take on delinking redlinks. Yes, some should be removed, but most of them point to areas where WP is lacking. For instance, recently, you removed a couple of links to universities. These would be perfectly valid article subjects. I know you have tempered your position some, and none of this really has anything to do with admin tools, I just thought you might like a bit more feedback. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per You Know Who, the month intervals seem rather disturbing, with them all being self-nominations. Also in your first one, you stated: "I am withdrawing and I will try again in a few months.", but you haven't waited a few months, you've tried twice in month intervals since then. You are too anxious, that's not a good quality in an a higher position. Kevin Breitenstein 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. I echo the same concerns already stated. I suppose that makes me a Death Eater. --Michael Snow 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    You know, I'm not one to suggest that lawyers can't be comics, but... zowie, that one fell flat. :-) --Sean Black 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    You want to be careful tangling with someone who is both a lawyer and a Death Eater. -Splashtalk 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Isn't that redundant? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Flat as a dead pan, yes. If it's not to your taste, sorry. --Michael Snow 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose great contributer, but the power-hungry nature expressed in the three quick self noms leaves me thinking it should be withheld untill the nom can go two or three months without trying. -Mask 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose great contributer, but not quite there in term of time and experience. :) Dlohcierekim 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. We're being asked to support this candidate every time there are a few weeks of decent editing. The trouble is that these few weeks are interspersed with serious errors (April Fool's day, and deletion reviews complaining about jokes, heavy-handed deletion of templates that are not deleteable and ignoring numerous editors who tell him otherwise). These things happened just last month! Add to this that these three self-noms in as many months give a distinct impression of chomping at the bit and some impatience, and I feel uncomfortable with supporting an RfA now. Most editors who succeed here have several months of good, reliable editing with usually no substantial errors during that time, and certainly not in the last few weeks. I'd suggest some patience, an accumulation of a reputation for not getting things off-center and a non-self-nom in a couple more months (and not a few more weeks). I know from myself that it is easy to think you have "seen most things/it all" and then, as time goes by, you realise just how much you hadn't seen. On the up side, I see among recent edits non-contentious AfD closures — getting a feel for more things is an excellent continuation. -Splashtalk 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Three nominations in three months is too many (the fact that this is a selfnom makes no difference to me). Cynical 14:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I must echo Splash's reasons in their entirety, it is a pity because Pegasus is a valuable contributor. Unfortunately I do not think he is quite ready for adminship, as is evidenced by the problems with jokes, April Fool's day etc. I will probably support at a later date when Pegasus shows he can act with a suitable sense of decorum. Rje 14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. OpposePer Rje's sentiments above. A good user, but just needs more time to show the maturity required for adminship. --Wisden17 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. I could only support if this user were to be honest about his identity to the community. --Cyde?Weys 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    If you have concerns about my maintaining my anonymity to the community please by all means send me an email and I'll discuss it with you but for now my identity remains my own. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    ....Um, I'm honestly confused here. Are admins required to give out their real names or something? I don't know why people would want to give people who wish to harm them any information. --mboverload@
    Comment - I doubt it's required, but I think that using ones real name allows them to get a better reputation. (If your alias gets a bad reputation, you can change it, but there is more incentive to behave when your name is used.) This doesn't apply if you use the same alias all the time though, so ignore my rambling... MichaelBillington 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, fails 1FA (unfortunately...), but...I can see that you are on the right track. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Splash. Rapid-fire nominations are not a good sign; also, I share some civility/personality concerns regarding editor, who occasionally seems obstinate and not very open to compromise in deletion discussions. Xoloz 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose It's not just impatience with RfA renoms; it's impatience with other users. Minimum of 2 months of patience is now in order. Tyrenius 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above. Ral315 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weakest of weak opposes I like the editor, but the RfA noms, especially for self-noms, seem a bit too impatient. Sorry. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, per Splash and Lord Voldemort. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. User is too hasty. He welcomes User:Willy on Wheels should be a Sysop, calls things vandalism when they are nothing of the sort (my only guess is "dyke" set off some CVU bot and he duely reverted it without looking), reverts an unauthorized bot that changed only whitespace but reverted someone else's edit to do it with an edit summary refering to changing someone's comments? (the bot was doing spelling changes on talk pages--but this was an article and it wasn't a spelling change it was doing), reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism? Kotepho 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment The link that says "reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism?" only shows that "ulglkklh" was removed. G.He 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, this is the proper diff. There is some talk about it on his (Pegasus') talk page also. Kotepho 02:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Kotepho. Naconkantari 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak oppose - when I opposed last time, I said I'd consider supporting in a few months and it's not even two since. More haste, less speed... —Whouk (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per last time Jaranda wat's sup 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Still needs a bit more time and experience. Zaxem 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Kotepho. --Zoz (t) 13:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Only 1500 edits and a few months experience. Furthermore, 3 self-noms in his/her short tenure here isn't necessarily something that should be encouraged. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. I think the wording Splash used sums up the general feeling I'm getting from this user. robchurch | talk 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral (change to oppose) for now. Held back from supporting because of the speed of renoms. Patience is a good quality for an admin. Tyrenius 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 07:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral So many self-noms, so little time. Phr (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Looks generally good, but very frequent self-nominations concerns me as to how patient the candidate is. Please be patient.--Jusjih 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per Jusjih. Royboycrashfan 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral No major concerns, but a bit too new to the project for my liking and a bit too keen for the mop. I'd suggest coming back in a couple of months, when I think you should easily gain promotion. TigerShark 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per Jusjih. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral see above --Mahogany 14:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. I am honestly undecided still. But i would like to give a well meant and unsollicited advise for if it is does not succeed. Wait the next time till someone else nominats you, and sure, that can take 2, 3 4 more months. I am afraid that if you try again yourself in about a month, which would be perfectly valid and such, it will start to push more buttons along the same line of the arguments I have seen here above, which I in part do understand. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral per Jusjih --Robdurbar 08:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • For whatever reason I get the impression that this user has a great desire to be an administrator. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but these repeated self nominations give me a queasy feeling. Lust for power never sits well with me.--Sean Black 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    What about normal lust? Is that allowed? The Land 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hm. Lust for power. You could have also taken this as a lust for greater responsibilities? --Andy123 candy? 10:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


User's contributions.Voice-of-AllTalk 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Pegasus1138 (over the 4012 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 101 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 30, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 21, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.44% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 33.9 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 4012 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 270 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.8% (32)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.15% (6)
Superficial article edits (wikify/grammar/spelling/tagging): 23.9% (959)
Unmarked article edits: 0% (0)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2000 | Average edits per page: 2.01 | Edits on top: 12.19%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 45.64% (1831 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 32.43% (1301 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 21.31% (855 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.62% (25 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 37.51% (1505) | Article talk: 3.56% (143)
User: 13.48% (541) | User talk: 17.47% (701)
Wikipedia: 18.42% (739) | Wikipedia talk: 6.48% (260)
Image: 0.65% (26)
Template: 1.37% (55)
Category: 0.57% (23)
Portal: 0.32% (13)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.15% (6)

Username Pegasus1138
Total edits 4012
Distinct pages edited 2063
Average edits/page 1.945
First edit 01:48, February 21, 2006
 
(main) 1505
Talk 143
User 534
User talk 699
Image 26
Template 55
Template talk 6
Category 23
Wikipedia 748
Wikipedia talk 260
Portal 13
 G.He 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See Pegasus1138's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Would you really consider youself "always civil"? I seem to remember a run-in with you on IRC on April Fools' Day. NSLE (T+C) at 03:50 UTC (2006-05-30)
    • That was me taking a situation too seriously and a situation which I apologized for. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I was referring to our little spat re. Jimbo's page, which I don't think you've apologised for (at least, I don't remember it, so my apologies if you have). Anyhow, as above, I don't consider that big enough to oppose you (anymore, at least, I used that to oppose you last time IIRC). NSLE (T+C) at 03:55 UTC (2006-05-30)

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 would help close AFD debates which I already do for clear cut cases where the consensus is to keep but I would be able to close delete and more complex ones if I had admin tools. I would also use the tools to help my vandalfighting and I would continue to keep an eye on cfd and tfd since having admin tools can help with that.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: <cliche> I am proud of all my contributions on Wikipedia </cliche> A few contributions though that I am proud of is my continuing quest to try to get Megatokyo to featured status and my work on Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny.
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: I have been in several conflicts including Wikipedia:Semi-Bots and the conflict in regards to the display of a picture of Muhammed at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. In every conflict I have been in I have been civil and have listened to the concerns and suggestions of both those that I agree with and disagree with.


Optional question from User:NSLE:
Regarding the recent controversy with Linuxbeak and Raul about unblocking Selina and Blu Aardvark, what is your take? If you were called upon to make a split-second decision, what would you do? This question is totally optional, but I'd be interested to know your answer. NSLE (T+C) at 01:28 UTC (2006-05-31)

DriniQuestion

Do you think sysops performing actions not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

More optional questions

In looking at your nomination I wonder just why you want to be an administrator. What tools are you missing to do what you want to do? Ifnord 14:53, 6 June 2006 (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.