Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ecoleetage (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 16 January 2009 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PeterSymonds

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (40/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) –
Nomination from Pedro

Dear colleagues, a slightly unusual RFA here and let us all hope that it will be sans drama. PeterSymonds was an administrator, passing his RFA at 100/0/1 on 12 May 2008. In August evidence came to light that Peter had knowingly allowed his account to be used by others. He requested desysopping and resigned under a cloud. Two bullets for ease:
Now, of course it would have been easy for Peter to do a number of things - never edit again, exercise a right to vanish, start a sock etc etc. But no. Peter took a break and resumed editing.
It is, I feel, fair to say that during his time as an administrator (just three and a bit months) he was both highly active and highly accurate. Some more bullets;
Since his desysop Peter has been the model Wikipedian - writing, patrolling, helping, commenting, adding value to the project.
However, let me make no bones here - he made a mistake of the highest order by allowing his account to be accessed. So, in a nutshell what do we find;
  • PeterSymonds was and is an asset to Wikiedpia
  • PeterSymonds was a highly active and accurate administrator
  • PeterSymonds demonstrated a gross error of mis-judgement
  • PeterSymonds handled the situation with good grace, and returned with a new passion after his desysop
So we have the evidence. We need not guess whether the editor will be effective with the tools - we know. What we now need to know is if we can trust him once more. I understand that members of the community may feel that the trust has gone forever. I hope, however, that his work in recent months will demonstrate that he has learnt from his error and that he will not be so foolish as to repeat it. If ever there was a time when forgiveness should be part of our culture I believe this is the editor we should extend it to. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Co nomination by IMatthew

Back when I used to edit as a newbie, I didn't know much about Wikipedia. I knew what an administrator was, but I only know of two admins that were close "friends" of mine. I hadn't, at the time, realized that there happen to be more helpful administrators around the website. The first one I ran into, was PeterSymonds. I had requested page protection once, and PeterSymonds was the one to protect it. From there on out, I noticed that nine out of ten times, when I requested protection of a page, PeterSymonds was the one to protect it, and I considered that very helpful. It may have been a time where there were not many active admins at RFPP, but I was always running into him there.

When the incident happened in August, I was a semi-established editor, and had realized that his actions were not be appropriate for an administrator. I was very surprised to hear that he was involved in the incident. I followed the thread and read the conversations involving him, and he was nothing but apologetic and understanding that he made a huge mistake. He voluntarily gave his tools up, and took a break. I couldn't think of a better way to handle the situation if I tried. He then returned, and since then has been nothing less than extremely helpful. My requests for help from him with anything related to Wikipedia are answered almost immediately, and when he offers his help, it's exactly what I'm looking for. He's always around to assist whether it is copy-editing an article, helping find a consensus in articles and discussions, or offering random advice and assistance.

Of all the users who should have the extra tools, I believe he tops the list and is ready to get them back and start using them in good faith again. I hope that everyone is able to see past the incident, and realize that PeterSymonds is one hell of an editor, and will be nothing but a net positive to the community, once again. iMatthew // talk // 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Juliancolton (talk · contribs) — This is only my second RfA co-nomination, which proves that I view PeterSymonds as one of the most valuable members of the community. Pedro covered pretty much everything, and I agree with his nomination entirely. Peter has already proven to us that he can be trusted with the tools. His admin actions were accurate and well-thought out, and his contributions, both before, during, and after adminship have been helpful, constructive, and productive. He is one of the few editors who can strike a perfect balance between article writing and work in administrative areas. A polite and friendly user, Peter often answers questions at various noticeboards, including the help desk, exhibiting his experience and ability with newbies. Peter did make a rather large mistake, but I see it as nothing more than a temporary lapse in judgment, which everybody has experienced. I can honestly say that I've never seen an editor, administrator of otherwise, with a perfect tract record. And while many editors show continued and persistent abuse or poor judgment, Peter got back on the horse and continued his work. He is still an administrator in his behavior and editing, just without the enabled tools. I expect that it will be extremely difficult for the community to overlook the incident in August, but it seems to me that Peter was too valuable an administrator to lose. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted with thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The areas I frequently worked in were C:SD, WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:RFPP. Less frequently, but relatively often, I worked at WP:RM and WP:DRV. The administrative backlog at WP:RM has been burdened by only a few admins, so dealing with the older requests were occasionally helpful. Other areas I felt/feel comfortable working in were WP:DYK (relatively frequent updates; though the process itself has been altered), WP:PERM (granting rollback, account creator, NPW and AWB), CAT:PER, and CAT:UNBLOCK. I have relatively good experience in all these areas, so I would feel confident to work on these again. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I was the main author in four featured articles (1, 2, 3, 4). Two of them were GAs before promotion, and three of them were featured on DYK. I'm working on their elder sister in my userspace (here), which was significantly delayed because the only full biography was hard to find. As well as this, I have three DYKs (Henry Cockeram, Hugh Audley, Jane Loftus, Marchioness of Ely). Further to my as article work, I feel my effort outside the mainspace is beneficial, including giving opinions at WP:VP, assisting through WP:HD, and answering {{helpme}} requests should they appear. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The main and the most serious incident was the August incident, in which, as described above, I knowingly allowed another user to access my account. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do, and I have (and continue to) apologise for it. I regret it deeply. The exact circumstances which led to the unfortunate incident are available in the diffs composed by Pedro above, and while I certainly lost your trust as a result, I can only promise that such an incident will not reoccur, and that my password is new and strong. The editing disputes I can remember are few (working in 19th century British royalty articles tends to keep you away from too much drama), but there have been administrative disputes in the past. One incident in early August involved the removal of rollback from one user (AN/I thread), a decision endorsed. I was somewhat involved in the Radio Wikipedia drama, which mainly involved deleting a few derivative copyright violations and closing down various threads (here and here). Those incidents, I feel, required action; but they did not cause undue stress. In conflicts such as this it is best to assume good faith, and try and maintain the calm. In the cases listed, there were no blocks required or issued, so the issue was resolved (by a number of people) successfully. For future conflicts, it is vital to be communicative, friendly, neutral and understanding, no matter how difficult it can be. If one becomes involved in a conflict, either directly or indirectly, it is important to remain open and discuss the issue, because suddenly shutting off half way through would just confuse the discussion. That is what I have done and will always try to do. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/PeterSymonds before commenting.

Discussion


Support
  1. Absolutely, no questions asked and here's my tl;dr AKA 3rd co nom: I knew Peter way before the incident happened and was impressed. As Pedro says, and others note, he was highly active (always around), accurate (with deletes, protects, and blocks) and someone you could really talk to (not just chit chat with). I have spent the last few months talking to Peter almost everyday. He has taught me so many different things about adminship and editing, not once loosing his patience. He never once gloated about what happened, and with every opportunity he had, he set the record straight and owned up to his actions no matter who questioned them. This is definitely one of the most powerful attributes an admin can have; admitting when you were wrong. Before he resigned his bit (disallowing any form of drama) he was an honest, responsible, and knowledgeable admin and I believe he will continue to be. I only wish I had the pleasure of nominating him myself (Pedro, IMatthew, and Julian you bastards :D ), as I do in fact trust him. Synergy 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support for doing the right thing for Wikipedia - as nominator. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Pedro Dlohcierekim 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't trust that Pero bloke ..... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The typo could have been worse (intead of Pero, it could have been Pedo) "coughs". Synergy 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Yes. Sam Blab 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support - It's about time he got it back. :) VX!~~~ 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Yes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support - Would have to be insane to repeat this error. I know from personal experience that he is not. Great, trustworthy user. --Jake WartenbergTalk 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support A great admin and I trust him to have learned from his mistakes. We all make them after all and Peter is one who earned his trust back through hard work, never complaining, just doing a great job. Regards SoWhy 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. support great admin who messed up.--Pattont/c 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. One retarded error in judgment, but he's hardly likely to do it again...Moreschi (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. It reflects to Peter's credit that he accepted responsibility and voluntarily desysoped in last year's trouble; anyone can make a mistake and I think there is no realistic chance of it being repeated. His conduct since then has been exemplary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I have no problem with him getting the tools back. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I know that he will not repeat the error ever again. bibliomaniac15 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support as co-nom. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support PeterSymonds made a mistake in the highest order by allowing Steve Crossin to access his account. While normally I would say "there is no way we should ever let this guy have administrator access ever again," there are several exceptions to this rule. This is one of them.
    Pedro goes over the key details very well in his nomination, and I too would like to add my support for it. In May, when Balloonman and Pedro first brought him to RfA, Peter was considered the model candidate, and for good reason too. Peter is calm and collected at every location I have seen him at. His work in the CSD and AIV areas was extremely helpful, as would be his work at RfPP after his RfA. His work at the Help Desk (over 500 edits) further shows his helpful nature.
    Peter has not just focused on the maintenance part of the encyclopedia either, but has written 4 very important British history-related FAs which passed with scarcely a few thousand kilobytes of discussion=. He hasn't stopped with his work either; I have seen him working a couple of DYKs. I have also looked through Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, which looks like it will pass FAC just as easily as his previous FA did.
    In fact, the only reason that I can see to possibly oppose Peter is over the SteveCrossin issue. I hope the community has matured enough to let a highly active, well respected former administrator who had messed up once and apologized for it return to a janitorial role that would result in less work for all of the community. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Moved from RFA talk as a pre-transclusion comment per the editors request. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support we had actually been discussing this case. Evidence suggests past mistakes have been learnt from and Peter has moved on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support I didn't know Peter from a hole in the ground prior to the OMGDRAMA thing. Let's just say I have got to know him a lot better since that incident, and I trust him not to do something so silly again. I think the desysop was necessary, but it's time for him to get the bit back. Majorly talk 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support I have interacted with Peter several times, all have been excellent. Well-rounded, and good user. SpencerT♦C 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. F**kingly strong edit-conflict 5x support - I was alarmed when I saw this. I most certainly thought that Peter already was an administrator. It's time he was given the tools back. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, quite certainly. --Amalthea 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support He has attempted to regain our trust, and succeeded. It's about time that he came back. Until It Sleeps 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support: Yes! --Chasingsol(talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Fuck yes (sorry Garden). Peter was an excellent admin who made a mistake. He did the absolutely correct and honourable thing in resigning the tools, and I should think it's obvious to anyone that any mistakes along those lines will never happen again. This should have happened a month or two ago, IMHO. //roux   00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I see no evil here. I am happy to believe that Peter has learned from his mistake. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yuppers - I love a comeback! --David Shankbone 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. So that was the August incident! Fine by me. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. (edit conflict) PeterSymonds made a mistake. A big one. But he did his absolute best to fix it and I believe he has done enough to earn back my trust. I think he deserves a second chance. Useight (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I never knew he was desysopped. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Peter made a big mistake, but he has atoned for it and handled himself with good grace. There has never been a question in my mind about Peter's ability or knowledge to carry out admin tasks. His promotion would be of great benefit to the project. Rje (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - here's to having another vote from me that will be exactly opposite of the overall result. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support (ec) Peter is a great Wikipedian. I know him mostly from around the Simple Wikipedia. When I was knew and had a question Peter would always be there. Even know, after a year Peter is the same great Wikipedian. He makes great edits, he was a very good admin that just hit a bump in the road. He deserves a second chance and I trust him. Good luck buddy. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support --Chris 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I thought he was one already. Guess I was right.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. As one of his original noms I'm a little disappointed that I didn't know about this until now... but what the hey... when the incident went down I felt that Peter was the least culpable of the people involved and think he's learned his lesson.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Without doubt. I think it was right that Peter should have a time away without the tools for what went on - they need to be treated with complete respect and the community need to know that the person who uses the tools is the person the believe is using them. I think Peter has learnt his lesson now and I expect he won't give his password out again - he's a very decent guy and it was a small lapse in judgement that led to what happened. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Duh. No question. One lapse in judgment, lesson learned. Won't happen again. --NrDg 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I always find it a tad unusual to see under-a-cloud admins at RfA, as I go to review their "near administrator actions" (NACs, AFDs etc) as I would a normal nominee and realize that they have already been tested by time in those aspects (and I don't believe that any drama has unfolded over those aspects of PeterSymonds' wikilife). Because of this I only have to look at what happened to cause the desysopping and post-desysopping. After looking at why he was desysopped, I don't believe that it is that serious a problem; we all make mistakes, and PeterSymonds has hopefully learned from his and his post-desysopping contributions seem to be of a good standard also. Good luck Peter. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Full support - Peter's gained my trust back. Xclamation point 00:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per Useight. LittleMountain5 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. He has paid his due and is clearly and obviously suitable for the mop. Withholding it from him merely hurts the project. DARTH PANDAduel • work 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. You can haz mop back. FlyingToaster 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support No wrong queue jokes today -- oh, yes, I am in the right queue here! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds_2&oldid=264372971"