Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 5 May 2008 (→‎Support: yup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PeterSymonds

Voice your opinion (talk page) (17/0/0); Scheduled to end 14:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) - I was looking at the people who were looking for Admin Coaches yesterday when I stumbled across PeterSymonds. In his summary, he wrote, "Main areas I will work in will be CAT:CSD, WP:RM, closing WP:XFD discussions and WP:AIV. I have four featured articles, and my understanding of policy is pretty sound. Adminship would just mean being able to do things myself rather than asking someone else to do it for me." He also indicated that he had over 5,000 edits and another 500 deleted edits. I immediately asked myself what is wrong with this candidate that he is seeking an admin coach? A quick search through his edits and talk pages revealed no red flags, so I asked him flat out, "Am I missing something." Before he had a chance to respond Pedro and dihydrogen monoxide both chime in with requests to co-nom Peter! I'm not a big fan of CSD'ers, so I had to check this guy out.

As for his speedy deletions, I found Peter to err on the side of caution rather than rushing to delete articles. He also has a history of working on articles after other people nom'd the article for speedy deletion. I found a case where he nom'd a school as A7 but then fixed it himself, and gave it an appropriate tag. After reviewing about 50 of his nominations, I couldn't find any that I felt were mistagged! Whenever he participated in XfD's he gave a solid rationale with links to relevant policies.

In addition to the areas he mentioned above (CAT:CSD, WP:RM, WP:XFD, WP:AIV), Peter has been involved with the help desk and reference desk. He is sought out by others for his help and he acts in a manner consistent with our top admins. I have every confidence that he can handle the tools.Balloonman (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Pedro Well, we all know we don't like to many co-noms, and that nominations should add real value to the RFA process. In light of the excellent words above, I'll be briefer than normal. I first ran into Peter in February when I granted him rollback. Even then I suggested adminship, which he humbly demured. Well over the intervening 8 weeks he's only gone from strength to strength. A real all rounder who takes article writing as his main interest, demonstrating knowledge of procedure, policy and guidelines in all his contributions. There would seem to be no question he will be an even greater asset to our project with admin tools, and I hope the community find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  10:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. PeterSymonds | talk 05:14, 5 May 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As was described in the nomination, my main areas of interest are CAT:CSD and WP:AIV. I have experience with tagging articles for CSDs, and I know when it's appropriate to decline a speedy. As for AIV, I have nominated several users and IPs to be blocked, and have also left notes on the AIV page when I didn't think a block was appropriate for whatever reason (not enough vandal edits, no edit after final warning etc). I'm less active at WP:RPP, but I've listed a few articles there, I understand the policy, and I know when it's not appropriate to protect/unprotect. WP:RM is also an area in which I've become more active, and I intend to carry out uncontroversial proposals as well as helping with the backlog of discussions that has developed. As for XfD, I've commented on several and closed a few; none of them were ever contested, with the exception of one, but that was because I was a non-admin, and not because the close itself was a bad call.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are my four featured articles, three of which were DYKs and two of which were GAs before being promoted. Other than that, I rewrote Tudor dynasty, and I'm in the process of saving Monarchy of the United Kingdom from FAR.
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: Not really. A few recent items worth mentioning, though. A few months ago I split Line of succession to the British Throne after receiving permission on the talk page, and unfortunately I'd finished by the time the opposers joined the discussion. Ultimately the bold edits were reverted, but there was never a "heated" discussion, and that was a call as an editor. Secondly, a user criticised my handling of Dutch Acadie (which is currently at AfD). I asked him/her to provide evidence for a claim that the term absolutely did not exist, but they resorted to abuse on my user talk page. It was tagged for CSD, but it was an inappropriate tagging, so I was requesting more information. Nonetheless, it appears to have been resolved, and the discussion at AfD is not a heated one.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Please describe the worst signature you have ever seen on Wikipedia.
A. Oh, so many, and I remember a lot of discussions about toning down signatures. Unfortunately, I can't remember the users, so I saw this at WP:How to fix your signature. I didn't like the colour or size. (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 09:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC) PeterSymonds | talk 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two-part question from ArcAngel

5a. What action(s) would you take with an editor who has vandalized your userpage?
A. I consider myself to be mature enough to take appropriate action. If it was the first vandalism edit, then I would leave a standard level 1 warning. If it was a vandalism-after-final-warning, to avoid potential conflict of interest, (I know my duties, I know whether it's appropriate, but just to be on the safe side), I would report at AIV instead of blocking the user myself. I wouldn't resort to protection unless my userpage became a target for vandalism.
5b. Would you take their editing history under consideration, especially if it was an IP editor tagged as being from an educational institution?
A. Definitely, as well as the number of edits made. If it was a blatant vandal-only account, created recently for example with, say, 7 non-constructive edits, then I would report him/her as a blatant vandal. If it was a school IP, who vandalised after a final warning, I would report as such and recommend the shortest possible block. If it was a school IP (or any IP, or user who perhaps didn't mean to vandalise) that hasn't vandalised after a final warning, then I would warn in the normal way.

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Why is the talkpage of this RFA still redlinked? Is mathbot busted? Does anyone know how to post the relevant "numbers"? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It took some time for Kakafonous's numbers to come up, too. Tan | 39 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm helpless without a bot to do it. (not that I'm an editcounter anyway, just like to look at it, it's so pretty....) Anyone know how to manually add it? Rudget, I think I've seen you do that before...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the editcount tool, but I'm not sure how to get the text-formatted editcount out of the counts report. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either, but I prefer to use this.Balloonman (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Beat the Nom(s) Support. I've been waiting on this one - a good, reasonable candidate with solid work at AFD and the Help Desk. There's good mainspace work, as well, with multiple Featured Articles to the candidate's credit. No reservations. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I was thinking of nominating him myself. Epbr123 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per this, this, this (in response to an AIV report), and this. Rudget (Help?) 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't like adding as per other people votes, but this clearly defines one of those moments. Support as per Rudget. Razorflame 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support the editor seems to have good understanding of policies, so abuse of tools seems highly unlikely AVandtalkcontribs 15:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support a civil editor who will use the tools wisely based on what I've seen. --CapitalR (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Absolutely. I am impressed with this editor's civility and just his overall level-headedness. He will be a welcome sight around both AIV and CSD. Trusilver 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yup. "No problems here", a wise editor once said...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. No negatives I see. -JodyB talk 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. The candidate appears civil and helpful. He's a solid encyclopedia-builder who seems to understand policy. Majoreditor (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. No problems here. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I see a strong contributor in review of edits. Well spread out across the various spaces. Answers to questions are well put together and show knowledge. Not worried based on my review. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Excellent answers. Also, because of the FA articles. Trust the nominators, trust the user. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I find no reason to vote otherwise. Well rounded candidate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, someone who digs in with one day's notice to save a pending mainpage article from embarrassing us, and prevent trip to WP:FAR, is a trustworthy asset to Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No concerns... clearly committed to the encyclopedia... will make good use of tools, IMO... Nominations by both Pedro and Balloonman means a lot to me, because of my respect for them. Enigma message 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Stongest support - This user appears more times than anyone else on my watchlist! Not only do I always bump into him in the article building areas but I also see him in the more tedious areas. Peter is an asset to the project! Best of luck!--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Ability & attitude shown so far make me believe Peter will make a great admin. --Rodhullandemu 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds&oldid=210364709"