Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

PeterSymonds

[change source]
PeterSymonds (talk · contribs)

End date: 9 Feb 2009

Peter first edited Simple in July last year, and has become increasingly active over the past few months. For those unfamiliar, he is also an admin on English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikiquote. He is very clueful in various discussions, and with all the recent resignations, any extra help we can get would be excellent, and I think Peter would do a great job. Majorly talk 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Accepted, with thanks to Majorly for his kind words. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Majorly talk 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, to force you to accept. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --M7 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support – Great user. TheAE talk 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Damn it Peter. 1 day after you refuse my nom, you accept his? :P I think that the community must have something against me...i'm joking, for those without a sense of humor Shapiros10 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I had no intention of running yesterday. It was only today, after seeing the resignations, that I was persuaded to run. Sorry; it wasn't so much an acceptance of noms, but a change in my decision to run at all. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hell yes. SteveTalk 23:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A better man to replace me. I always wanted to nom him but i got busy..Good luck pete, and no, yo can't beat me in basketball, seriously, give up now !! ...--Cometstyles 23:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support You are a good user on here, but you do not actively contribute in the mainspace. That concerns me a bit, but not enough to vote oppose for you. Razorflame 23:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I would Support if I was eligible to vote. Peter is an all around excellent user; I'm sure that he will help out your wiki. NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, you are free to !vote. You didn't break this, and it says, "Votes made by users with very few edits may or may not be counted." So, you're free to vote if you want, it only may or may not be counted by the closing 'crat. TheAE talk 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll move it to the support column then, and I ask that it please be discounted if this RfA falls in the crat discretionary range. NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Something tells me that's not going to be an issue, it looks like a storm is coming. -Djsasso (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I have been meaning to nominate him for awhile. -Djsasso (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - This user has done well in other projects and has done great here. Techman224Talk 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strongly support - Of course I'll support. But, I must add that being an admin else where means nothing here.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - No reason to oppose. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Chenzw  Talk  06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support — Definitely. Fine administrator for the job. ;-) — RyanCross (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Obviously. MC8 (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Chris 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - - tholly --Talk-- 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Not as active as I'd like, but still, would do a good job Kennedy (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support AGF. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support & strongly for numerous reasons.--Kanonkas(talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, great editor, making him an admin will improve Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--Mwanaharakati(Longa) 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Definitely - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - obviously a great addition to the admin group. MathCool10 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Obviously. Garden (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Wow, I nearly missed it support :) Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - No reason to oppose. SimonKSK 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Trust issues Soup Dish (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you expand on this, please? Thanks, Razorflame 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need. I think the reasoning is pretty obvious (to me, anyway). PeterSymonds (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PeterSymonds, not for the people who didn't know. Razorflame 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of Razorflame, and anybody else, PeterSymonds was dessysoped over at EN, not too long ago, for sharing his account with a non-admin, who also happens to edit here. That's about as blatant a breach of trust as there can be. Soup Dish (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But he was reconfirmed a couple weeks ago, which shows that his trust has been regained at that project. –Juliancolton (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of us have forgiven the incident from six months ago, that was a temporary lapse of judgement of an otherwise exemplary admin career. Majorly talk 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    w:WP:FORGIVE? SimonKSK 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay. The enWiki incident wasn't exactly small. As I said before my reconfirmation, any oppose related to that incident would of course be justified. Ergo, any oppose I receive elsewhere would also be justified. Lots of discussion about the merits of the oppose isn't necessary. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

Could this be snowed?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an idea :) :) --vector ^_^ (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. SNOW can be used to fail, but what if something unimaginably horrific happens in the next few days that makes everyone oppose? MC8 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the same logic can't be used on the other side why?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because when an RfA is clearly failing, there's little than can be done within 7 days to address the issues. On the other hand, while unlikely, Peter might go nuts in the next couple of days. –Juliancolton (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like a total abuse of trust such as standing by and letting another user use his administrators account as if he were an administrator when he accidently slipped and gave his password out publically and never got around to fixing that problem and then getting stripped of the flag for letting it all happen and then declaring he would never step forward to be admin again but that proving to be untrue as he accepted nominations on two seperate occasions at separate wiki's? Naw, that would never happen. 70.174.36.216 (talk)
Wow a user who hides behind an IP to make an attack. That's not cowardly at all. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh –Juliancolton (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't try and justify it, but I will point out my second RfA at the English Wikipedia saw myself reconfirmed with 197/16/5. I think that shows that the majority of the participating community placed their trust once more. If I gave any indication that such an incident might happen again, the request would have gone very differently. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What worries me the most, is you were 3 votes shy of 200. Synergy 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is 200, because my vote counts as 4, but Jimbo wanted it to be fair. ;D SimonKSK 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[change source]
Promoted, with over 95% support --Eptalon (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (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://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds&oldid=8893515"