Thehelpfulone (talk | contribs) →Support: fix vote |
|||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
#: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 [[WP:AGF|messed up once]] and [[User:PeterSymonds/Apology|apologized for it]] return to a janitorial role that would result in less work for all of the community. <font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NuclearWarfare]]</font>''''' <sub>(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)</sub>''''' 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
#: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 [[WP:AGF|messed up once]] and [[User:PeterSymonds/Apology|apologized for it]] return to a janitorial role that would result in less work for all of the community. <font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NuclearWarfare]]</font>''''' <sub>(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)</sub>''''' 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
#::<small>'''Note''' Moved from RFA talk as a pre-transclusion comment per the editors request</small>. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
#::<small>'''Note''' Moved from RFA talk as a pre-transclusion comment per the editors request</small>. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
# |
#'''Support''' we had actually been discussing this case. Evidence suggests past mistakes have been learnt from and Peter has moved on. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
#'''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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
#'''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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:54, 15 January 2009
Nomination
(talk page)
(14/0/0); 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:
- User:Deskana notes the events at WP:ANI [1]
- ARBCOM motion that PeterSymonds may reapply for the tools via RFA [2]
- Now, of course it would have been easy for Peter do 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;
- 5,223 admin actions
- over 3,500 deletions
- over 900 protections
- over 200 blocks
- PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) - the full list.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted with thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
General comments
- Links for PeterSymonds: PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/PeterSymonds before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- 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)
- Strong Support for doing the right thing for Wikipedia - as nominator. Pedro : Chat 23:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Per Pedro Dlohcierekim 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't trust that Pero bloke ..... :) Pedro : Chat 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- The typo could have been worse (intead of Pero, it could have been Pedo) "coughs". Synergy 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't trust that Pero bloke ..... :) Pedro : Chat 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes. Sam Blab 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - It's about time he got it back. :) VX!~~~ 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Yes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- support great admin who messed up.--Pattont/c 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- One retarded error in judgment, but he's hardly likely to do it again...Moreschi (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support I have no problem with him getting the tools back. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I know that he will not repeat the error ever again. bibliomaniac15 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support as co-nom. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note Moved from RFA talk as a pre-transclusion comment per the editors request. Pedro : Chat 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Oppose