Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn.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

[edit] Pegasus1138

Final (7/36/3) ended 04:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am withdrawing and I will try again in a few months. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1138 (talk • contribs) – I'm Pegasus1138 and I think I would make a good administrator since I am active and have contributed to all parts of Wikipedia as well as having a good relationship with other editors. Even though I have not been an editor for a huge amount of time I have a good feel for policy as well as how Wikipedia operates and I think I have the patience and the time to do the job well. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support: I don't mind if he has few edits. He demonstrates ability and an understanding of wikipedia that is necessary to use admin tools. - Richardcavell 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Support: I've no problem with the edit count, and he/she seems to have a sensible head on their shoulders. Lankiveil 04:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC).
3. Support, this user seems dedicated despite the relatively short time here. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Moral Support Good edit counts and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, is good admin material. Has shown his presence on Wikipedia. Good edit count and a cool head on discussion pages, would make him a good candidate. —This unsigned comment was added by Anirudhsbh (talk • contribs) . Oh, sorry about that --Andy123(talk) 16:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (Andy123(talk) is Anirudhsbh)
6. Support per Siva1979 and Anirudhsbh. Joe 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Moral Support - you don't need to be in such a hurry to acquire admin tools. There are plenty of other tools for you to use. Wikipedia is vast, and has vast resources. I'm still learning them myself. In good time, you'll be nominated and chosen. In the meantime, keep up the good work. --Go for it! 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Too new Prodego ^talk 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Two new (joined less than a month ago) and too few edits (< 1000 edits). You obviously look like you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but wait a couple months and I'll be glad to change my vote to support. joturner 21:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Too new (<1m), too few edits (<1000). Give it a few more months. dewet|™ 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. One month is too soon. Come back in six to eight weeks (and even tell me about it on my talk page), and I'll vote support for you. Mike H. That's hot 21:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose I suggest a quick withdrawal. Wait for a couple of months until you try again. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per my minimum standards. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose You're too new even if you have a few number of edits. You need to have at least 2,500 to 3,000 edits and be at least in Wikipedia for 3-4 months and learn all the rules Ottoman Sultan | Talk 23:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Way too new. Try again in about 4 months.--Mmounties (Talk) 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   Comment This user has voted twice: once here, and once below as CrnaGora (see signature wikilinks). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

   CommentThere also is no minimum number of edits to be an admin, despite what you want to think. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Although surely Jester is correct in suggesting that the two users are one, I think he is incorrect to suggest that the user means to suggest that there is a categorical requirement that one have "2,500 to 3,000 edits..." to be an admin; instead, I think the user is suggesting this as his/her categorical normative position. Whilst it is a position I find pernicious and a position the implementation of which would, I think, prove deleterious vis-à-vis the encyclopedia's prospects for continued success, I don't think it's fair here to suggest that the user is attempting to mislead other RfA voters into believing that Pegasus is ineligible to be an admin under some meta criteria. Joe 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

   My God, I didn't know the Architect was a Wikipedian. ;-) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

   Joe, I don't think I am (incorrect). See the (two?) users other opposition to Schzmo's RFA: they say literally the exact same thing.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

   We probably oughtn't to fill this RfA up with comments, but I should say that never did I disagree with Jester's assessment that the two voters are one person; indeed, supra, I wrote, "...surely Jester is correct in suggesting that the two users are one". My disagreement with you stems from your inferring in the explanations of that user an attempt to mislead voters by stating that Pegasus (and others against whom the user has voted) has an insufficient number of edits to be an admin; while I disagree profoundly with the argument that one need have xx edits to be an admin, I don't think Ottoman means to suggest that Wikipedia has a firm rule, only that he/she does in his/her voting, which is, of course, his/her right. Joe 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

   Ottoman Sultan is not my username. God! Look, I think he read the top wrong as well as I did (where it says that people with 1,000 to 2,000 edits rarely succeed). OK! And besides, I've changed my signature so you guys won't think that Ottoman Sultan is not my other username (which its not!!!!!!!!!!) Got it! Good. Crna ^t_e^c Gora 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose I think this enthusiastic fellow needs to contribute a bit more. They have less than 500 article edits and a significant number of them (~100 or so) have been with the AWB. Nephron 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose. You have to wait alot more, give it some time and be patient. You can't expect to be an admin after just starting. Weatherman90 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. You are too new. Wait a few months and gather a couple thousand more edits. Other than that you are doing fine. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose, too new. Maybe next time. --Terence Ong 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. I strongly suggest that you withdraw and wait at least 3 months. Become more familiar with policy and procedure. You are too new and inexperienced to have learned all that is needed for adminship at this time.--Dakota ~ ° 06:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose: To new to be Admin and too few edits. Wait for 2-3 months and increase your edit count until you try again. - CrnaGora | Talk 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    CommentThis user has voted twice: once here, and once above as Ottoman Sultan (see signature wikilinks). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose. as above. You have a good start, keep at it and try again in 2-3 months. ProhibitOnions 09:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Agree with all the above. --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose My only interraction with this user was when I noticed questionable use of AWB, which lead me to temporarily remove him from the list of authorised users until he showed me that he understood how to use the tool and what the rules were. Although he was civil and responsive (and quickly restored to the list) I couldn't possibly advocate handing admin tools over just yet. Also way too new, of course. --kingboyk 10:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Too new--Looper5920 12:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose, Spend some more time. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Reluctant oppose. Looks otherwise OK but seems to have a little too little experience. Please continue editing Wikipedia and reapply in a couple of months. JIP | Talk 16:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose But it's a weak one. Just need a little more time. Keep it up! --mmeinhart 17:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose Per above. Moe ε 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Temporary_Removal. --M@thwiz2020 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Mild Oppose Not enough project related editing yet. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Weak Oppose too soon, I'll probably support next time. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Too little experience in almost all aspects of Wikipedia.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose. I'm still learning about Wikipedia policy, and I've been active for 3 months. A good guy, but give it a while! haz _(user talk)^e 09:35, 19 March 2006
28. Oppose per Kingboyk and fails my personal standards. Ifnord 15:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Experience way too limited, edits look to me to be mostly bot AWB generated. Maybe after this user gains experience in editing articles. -- JJay 21:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Just wanted to clarify that I do not use bots on this account, I have a seperate account that is pending permission for me to do bot edits on. I assume you are mistaking Lupin's popup tool and AWB as bots which neither are. Check the AWB page and you'll see in bold letters that AWB is not a bot and if you look at how Lupin's popups work you'll notice that it isn't a bot either. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks, I changed it. My basic point is that your actual article editing, as in writing, copyediting, adding references, seems very, very light to me. I mean below you cite Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny as an example of some of your best work, but I reviewed the diffs and, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to have done much on this article except add a picture, two wikis and some reverts and tags. -- JJay 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'll be the first to admit that I've been a little bit light on adding stuff to articles but I've spent a lot of time reverting vandalism, discussing policy and policy proposals but I disagree with your assertion that using WP:AWB degrades any edits made with it to make articles better. I see AWB as a means to an end and it's a good tool to work with. Despite the fact that certain things I let the program suggest changes and then either accept and save them or reject and move onto the next one I also do some of the editing myself using it. I also use CryptoDerk's vandal fighter tool to help me spot vandalism but nobody has been put in a bad light for using that to revert vandalism. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not trying to put you in a bad light. It's proper when someone has a high edit count to examine the types of edits and the tools being used. There is nothing wrong with reverting vandalism or participating in policy discussions. I just feel, and this is strictly my personal view, that admins should have lots of experience with all the facets of improving articles in order to understand the users who are participating here. -- JJay 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

30. Oppose Needs a tad bit more experience. --Masssiveego 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose Less than a month of experience may not be enough.--Jusjih 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose per many others; way too new.--Deville (Talk) 15:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose needs more experience Ugur Basak 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose on experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose: please spend some time building the encyclopedia by adding good content. Jonathunder 18:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Not yet. I will nominate you myself at the ninetieth day - David Gerard 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Support My opinion on edit counts and edit summaries for use in testing a RFA is this: they are useless. However time is a consideration, you haven't been here enough, in a month or 3 ill support barring any vandalism. Mike _{(T C)} 06:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

   Could you clarify your vote by changing the "support" to "neutral", or moving the vote to the "support" section? haz _(user talk)^e 09:35, 19 March 2006

2. Neutral, too new really but I don't want to join the pile-on. Try again in a few months. the wub "?!" 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, I think the user is a good editor - and I don't want to give him/her discouragement through an oppose - but I don't wish to support. Sorry. Computerjoe's talk 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 63 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Pegasus1138's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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 with closing AFD's as well as dealing with reverting and blocking vandals and WoW attacks. I would also take a more active role in helping out with issues that have been brought up on AN, AN/I, and AN/3RR. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

A. I'm proud of all my contributions but I definitely how Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny thanks to myself and all the editors who have put a good deal of effort into making it a better article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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, at Wikipedia:Wikiethics I have been involved in an argument over how to write a good ethics guideline but except for one slight lapse I have during this disagreement always be able to hold my cool. Currently at my suggestion a poll (even though polls are evil) is being used to gauge support for the proposal. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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.