Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peterdownunder

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

Peterdownunder

[change source]
Peterdownunder (talk · contribs)

End date: 26 January 2009 08:55 (UTC)

When I first noticed Peter, he was hard at work in the mainspace. I knew instantly that he would one day be an admin here. I've been following his edits for some time now, and did some statistic checking a couple of days ago. Currently he has around 2,539 edits with 86% to article namespace! Not only that, he has created at least 122 articles and 19 redirects. A very busy guy. As for QD's, I noticed about 2 mistakes earlier on (he's been here since May 21, 2008), but were corrected (RfD tags instead of QD tags) and he has about 30 QD's, most of which were in December, so I can safely say he needs the tools now. Not only that, he is civil when someone brings an issue to his attention. A major plus. I think he is ready to start helping out with admin tasks. Good luck Peter. Synergy 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Accepted. I was surprised and honored to be proposed for an admin role on the simple english wiki. I am usually busy writing, I think that getting the language simple enough is a real challenge. I have a lot to learn about the technical side of the business, at which many of the younger editors are experts. It's great to be part of a world wide community that is working on such a worthwhile project. I thank everyone for their support so far, and look forward to their continued support in the future.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Per my nom. Synergy 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No reason not to. Majorly talk 11:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support - BG7 sums it up for me, but Majorly makes a good point. A few niggly things, but nothing that would really make me vote oppose. Good luck! Kennedy (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support giving him the tools would be a net gain for the project, even if he only has to use the tools a few times a week. Either way (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely Highly qualified and a good user.With an excellent name, I might add :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I definately support this user. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Looks fine to me. Juliancolton (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nothing in the contribution history appears problematic. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Synegry's nom. TurboGolf 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongly support - He's the best writter of articles in simple english. I'm amazed by his work on the articles he created especially Cassowary which is way better than the english wikipedia article. Also some vandalism reverts, so I say why not! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support — Agreed, would make a fine administrator. I also thought Peter would be nominated for adminship one day. Nothing controversial in this user's history here, and he's done good contributions to our project. — RyanCross (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I don't see anything problematic or bad here, and you have a nice mainspace count, and you're friendly? At EN, we don't always get that last part :P ѕwirlвoy ₪ 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Why not? Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per Synergy's nomination. Everything that I was going to say is said there. Cheers, Razorflame 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support No big deal. I can see he's only going to use them for good. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – I knew by giving you all those barnstars that one day you'd make an admin. ;) TheAE talk 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Per community consensus. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 12:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support The opposing arguments aren't much of an issue. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Changed my mind, you're ready, IMHO, but still, please get a little more active in the Wikipedia namespace. Good luck.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Very, Very, VERY Weak Oppose - I think that you would make a very good administrator, however I don't see enough discussion or VIP reports for my liking. Granted, users don't always reach 4 warnings, but I would have thought there would be a few more. Still, your main space is very commendable, and perhaps a comment could sway me to Support? BG7even 11:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, in answer to comments on discussions - I'm usually reading them, but don't often add a comment unless I have something new or important to add. I think you will find that when I have made a comment it is usually about language issues, eg simplifying, and justifying why there is a simple english wiki at all. Keeping it simple is my main interest. About VIPs, I am reverting vandalism whenever I find it, and putting in QDs whenever they are necessary. I have only found a repeat vandal a few times and have put in a VIP then. There are some much quicker and more efficient vandal hunters than me, but I'm doing my best. Most of the time I have my head down looking at ways to improve content in articles, which I think is an important job and one that I'm probably better at. Thanks for your interest and support, Peterdownunder (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's understandable. Your comments above are fair. However, if you are just looking at ways to improve content, are the tools really needed? I must say you're swinging me to support, and i'm going go away and have a think ;) Thanks, BG7even 13:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <not badgering, just commenting>Ah, the dreaded "need for the tools" argument. Look upon it this way. Part of improving content is deleting pages and blocking vandals. He doesn't need 20 AIV reports to know what vandalism is. He understands policy and is an excellent content builder; stays out of teh drahmaz, IMO just the sort of admin we need. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BG7: Since you can't see deleted contribs I fully understand your position. In my nomination, I mention his QD's and the majority of them being in December of last year (last month basically). This, in itself shows the need for the tools and was the very reason I waited until now to nominate him. Synergy 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakly oppose - I don't think you're ready.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Synergy 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any areas in particular you feel that he should focus on to gain experience for you to support in a future RFA? What kind of experience do you feel he is lacking that makes him not ready? This will help him improve for the future, Either way (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CM16 always does this on RFAs. Best not try and get an answer out of him - there simply isn't one. Majorly talk 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things, first I'll look into what Areas he should improve in, second, That's what I'm talking about majorly when I say you need to improve your people skills.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely wouldn't hurt him to get more active in the Wikipedia namespace.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 00:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand this argument. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, so I think it's good that the majority of the user's contributions are in the mainspace. Juliancolton (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is tru, an Administrator also needs to be active in the Wikipedia name space, i.e: WP:AN, WP:RFD, WP:RFA for the admin to be of any good.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed true, although he does have edits to VIP, AN, and various other things. Juliancolton (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A whopping 23 since last June, 8 of them being since the 18th of this month.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity: what would you consider a reasonable amount? Juliancolton (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    About what Gwib does.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CM. That link goes to your contribs, not gwibs. Synergy 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True :D, sorry...I have a program on my computer that automatically adds my username for me and it sometimes messes me up, I corrected the link and changed it to yours Synergy, I think your edits here are a prime example of how active an admin or admin-to-be should be in this namespace, here's the link.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Synergy is an admin. Thus, he has more areas of the project space to contribute to than Peter. Juliancolton (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter as reg user can contribute there too, but we'll play it that way, let look at Majorly then.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant; Peterdownunder isn't Majorly, nor Synergy, nor Gwib. Juliancolton (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh...you asked me what I thought was a reasonably amount of Wikiepdia namespace edits are, I answered you, and yes it's relevant.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

Result

[change source]

Promoted to Admin; result is clear at 18 support/1 oppose votes. Congrats. --Eptalon (talk) 21:58, 26 January 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/Peterdownunder&oldid=8872177"