Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 4

Add links
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[edit]

Final (16/9/5) ended 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) – I'm Pegasus1138 and I think I would be a good administrator. I would not abuse the tools and am willing to help out with some of the backlogs such as those at WP:CSD and the speedy deletions backlog to name two of the well known ones. I also do vandal fighting and am involved in editing articles such as Green Day and any other article that Special:Random throws my way. I also close keep and no consensus AFD's and as thus know my way and RFA and it's processes. I think I have a good temperment for an admin and have a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works and thus fit the general criteria to be an admin. I am also afraid of conflict though I try to avoid causing it or escalating conflicts and if I can at all help it I try to solve conflicts to the best of my abilities. I have also learned from my previous noms (see comments section for reference of them) in which I failed due to lack of experience.Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. First Support Experience, behaves like an admin. I see that Pegasus has some previous RfAs....since most of the opposes were based on experience, I'm willing to discount these as any notable baggage. They've been in some conflicts, but they seemed to handle them calmly. A few times, Pegasus has borderlined 3RR, but there was nothing wrong about their side of the dispute (in any case, Pegasus has never been blocked). This editor is active enough in both the encyclopedia and the community that I am inclined to support. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support JoshuaZ 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jaranda wat's sup 04:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I think he is really trying to help out around here, and needs the tools to do more. I don't see any evidence that he would abuse them, and he is willing to help in some areas where help is appreciated. You can teach tools, but there is no substitute for a good attitude. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I only wish you had referenced: a) your RfA history (per crzrussian) and b) your bot. αChimp laudare 05:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I listed my previous noms in the comments section for people's reference. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 06:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. DarthVader 07:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Merovingian - Talk 08:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support though it would be nicer to see a few more substantial article edits. --Robdurbar 09:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I've seen Pegasus around and, although the answers could be a bit a longer, especially for a self-nomination, short answers != bad admin. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. How many times do I have to support this great user? --Nearly Headless Nick 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support hmm... I thought he was one.  Grue  16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, oh no a typo in the answers to RfA, and no major article edits. Definately proof this user is going to abuse their tools. You don't need any major article edits to make a reasonable admin, in my opinion anyway.--Andeh 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support It is time to give him a chance. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support Meets most (if not all) of my standards but I don't like the answers to some of the questions. --Tuspm(C | @) 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose per very poor answers, RfA 4 without explanation of RfA history, user closes RfA's - what? - and borderline 3RR's to boot. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, meant AFD's I've fixed that typo, also what do you find poor about my answers specifically? Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing particularly wonderful about your closing of AfD's either. It's not forbidden per se, but non-admins aren't meant to do it by convention unless it's truly a speedy keep situation. Answers are way too short and do not inspire confidence. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your feedback, I close AFD's since it helps keep the load of so many AFD's off the admins and I feel that even without the title of admin I have the skills to close no consensus and keep AFD's. Also I am going to try to elaborate on my answers since you have a point that they're a little bit short. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Crzrussian you do got it a bit wrong there, any non-admin can close a keep AFD and sometimes merge ones, not only speedy keeps. Jaranda wat's sup 04:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The old version of the deletion process page says non-admins can close unambigious "keep" and variations like merge. It's here, instruction one. That section changed recently, but I'm assuming some of these no consensus closes were before that change (on 15 July). So CrazyRussian seems to have it right.--Chaser T 08:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I could barely find any non-minor edits to the article space since early May, and my one previous dealing with this user left me with questions about his competence in editing articles. He's a nice guy, but he really does need to actually do some good work on the encyclopedia itself before becoming an admin. Rebecca 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity how do you define minor since only a fairly small fraction of my edits are minor enough for me to actually mark minor (mostly spelling fixes and such). Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was struggling to find so much as an added paragraph in those contributions, and certainly not enough of them to get near double figures. Rebecca 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, I'd have to dig into my contributions to check but I definitely have made good contributions and would be trustworthy with the metaphorical mop and bucket. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose unfortunately, per CrazyRussian. So many RfAs so quickly, unimpressive answers, and appears to lack experience in certain important areas (writing articles, per Rebecca). RandyWang (raves/review me!) 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my answers to the optional questions below as well as my expanded answers to the questions. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Crazy Russian. --Vengeful Cynic 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see above, I have responded to and dealt with all of crazy russian's issues with this. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Too little time has elapsed since the last RfA. This means that: 1) there is insufficient evidence that the many problems cited in the previous RfAs have been addressed; and also 2) the user displays an uncomfortably "over-eager" desire for adminship. What's the rush? Xoloz 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per the 4 RFAs in the last 5 months and comments above. -- Steel 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a miscalculation on whoever calculated it's end. It was 4 RFA's in 6 months since I waited a month between my third rfa and this one. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose too many RfA's and not particularly active in the main article space. This RfA was not really put together very well either hence the confusion of the first oppose voter here. User should wait at least three months and gain experience interacting with other user on the article talk pages while editing. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I admit it wasn't originally put together that great but I did what anyone who listens does, I responded to and remedied every single issue that people have brought up. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Crazy Russian and Xoloz. Maybe wait until someone else nominates you next time? --Guinnog 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll see above that I have taken care of all of crazy russian's concerns and the reason I don't have someone else nominating me was because nobody stepped up when I asked. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe no one nominating you should have been a sign; perhaps people wanted you to wait longer (and for this, it's clear many do). Also, please answer my question below. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose. I had noticed the optional questions and was really hoping to see answers that would persuade me to support this candidate - for some reason I really wanted to have a reason to do so. However, I was utterly unimpressed with the answers, especially to Crazy Russian's question. That was a golden opportunity for the candidate to shine, but there is nothing of substance to persuade me otherwise. I also find the answers to Stifle's questions a bit harsh, if not contrary to WP:AGF (particularly the reference to "drive by voters" and "people who don't even look into the history of the candidate"). I can understand if this nominee is frustrated, but I am uncertain if this editor has truly learned to be patient. I may still support in the future, but not now. Agent 86 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Roughly the same amount of time and experience here as I have (except nominee has far more "talk" and "WP talk" edits), and by my measure that isn't quite experience enough. My bigger concern is that the nominee didn't disclose or explain the past three RfAs, how he has learned from those, or how he has improved or changed. Looking at the three prior RfAs, they all look pretty much the same in the nomination and the answer to standard question one. Add to that the fact there is barely any breathing room between the RfAs - makes me wonder what the rush is. However, no "oppose" from me as this editor obviously is a good contributor and adminship is supposed to be no big deal. I just can't say "support" and have a good feeling about it. Agent 86 05:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC). Changed to weak oppose. Agent 86 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually your right, there was no break between my first and 3rd noms which is one of the major reasons why people opposed my 2nd and 3rd nom along with lack of experience. Since that was an issue that was brought up in those noms I waited awhile between my 3rd nom and this nom specifically to give breathing room, the reason I did not originally (I have now added them, see the comments section) list my previous noms was that I did not think that they'd be relevant to this nomination since failed mostly due to my lack of experience and in the case of my 3rd nom my lack of wait between noms neither of which is an issue now. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral pending answers to additional questions. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Sitting on the fence for now, may change depending on developments including answers to the additional questions. --kingboyk 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, what has changed since the last three RFAs?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Meets most (if not all) of my standards but I would like to see their answers to additional questions. My vote is likely to change. --Tuspm(C | @) 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) - Changed to Weak Support[reply]
  5. Neutral- not really sure where to go yet. I'll see how this develops. --Clyde Miller 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I would definitely consider voting for him, but I would like to see more article contributions as well as the other stuff (that's just a personal view). Deb 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 would help close AFD's which is a task that I already do but am currently limited due to lack of tools to only keep and no consensus decisions. I also would help with WP:CFD and other related backlogs as well as anything else that's needed, not to mention vandal fighting. I would also help deal with issues that are brought up on WP:AN WP:AN/I and WP:3RR as well as any other things I could do to help where needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with all my contributions but my longest standing current articles that I've been working on are Green Day and Megatokyo both of which I put work on, my current project is to help get the quality up on Green Day to hopefully make it eventual featured article criteria which it's close to but not quite at yet.
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 was involved in the image conflict at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and have been in several conflicts at Green Day the former being in regards to both their genre and the location that they're from, this is currently being resolved on the talk page where I am part of a group of editors who are trying to develop a solid consensus on these issues in the drive to improve the article. The Jyllans-Posten Muhammad controversy was in regards to the display of an image of Muhammad, there was a brief stretch of edit warring on both sides but a consensus was developed months ago and the issue is for the most part settled. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from JoshuaZ As usual, additional questions are completely optional.

1 Could you expand on your answer to question 3 above. In particular, could you discuss how you reacted and behaved in the mentioned conflicts?

Sure, see above. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Could you discuss this dif and matters related to it?

This issue was a conflict of opinions on the development on a proposal, I felt it was ready for a vote and Rgulerdem disagreed. The diff you presented was me saying that I was going to back off from the conflict and let things be because I felt that it was the best choice for both me and for the other editors in that situation. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Stifle:

3. In your opinion, do sysops hold a technical or a political position? Why?
In my opinion syshophood is a purely technical ssue of giving editors who are trusted not to abuse the tools a set of extra tools that they can use the job, though unfortunately it many times becomes a political issue. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. What have you learned from your three previous RFAs that makes you think this one will go differently?
I have learned to be patient between RFA's and I have learned that you need experience to become an admin as well as that admin is a crapshoot determined by drive by voters and people who don't even look into the history of the candidate. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Do you support the German userbox solution?
Yes I do because it is a good compromise between the delete them all people and the people who want anything as a userbox in that space and eventually I think it will help appease the issues both sides are having with each other. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Q6:

6. March, April, June - and now July - four self-noms. Ordinarily, the inference from such a pattern of RfA activity would be that the user considers adminship to be some kind of a power-trip. In the spirit of AGF, with this question I'd like to give you an opportunity to explain your actions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the start of my third one, it wasn't june it was April, it ended in earliy June. The reason that I have renommed myself is that there are now many complaints about big backlogs which I would help with and I am trustworthy with the tools which people keep forgetting is the spirit of having someone become an admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Q7:

7. Who and where did you ask for a nomination for adminship? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pegasus1138_4&oldid=1143864008"