Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:20, 17 January 2009

PeterSymonds

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (126/6/3); 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
• ARBCOM motion that PeterSymonds may reapply for the tools via RFA

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;

• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Additional questions from Tiptoety

4.Can you explain why you let another user access your account, what you have learned from it, and why you will not do it again? Also, you sated here that you will never re-request adminiship. What has changed?

A: To answer the "why" part, I was asked several times not to change it, and for some reason I didn't; I can't say I'm fully sure of that reason myself. Maybe it was because he was a trusted user and considered admin material at the time. Maybe I didn't really see it as that much of a big deal. Or maybe a combination of both. Either way, it was, and let me repeat this again, incredibly stupid, and whichever one of those reasons was most true during the incident (it was definitely one of those, if not all), it is not a reason that I shall share again. As for the "what I have learned" part, I think the most obvious lesson was "don't share your account/admin account with anyone again", not just because one is doing actions that are attributed wrongly, but also because the person on the other end has not been formally trusted with admin tools. There are also privacy-related concerns, such as the ability to see deleted material, which I did not fully think through at the time. I think that also explains the "why I will not do it again" part. As for the apology, I'd forgotten about that clause; it was written just after my return, I had been asked about it, and adminship was the very last thing on my mind at the time. Hence why I wrote that. What's changed? I feel I've done my best to earn the trust back, and feel now is an appropriate time to ask for a second chance. I worked in a number of admin areas, and feel I can be the good administrator I feel I once was. Hope that clarifies a few things, but ask if you're unclear. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from Gimmetrow

5: You worked in CSD. Under what circumstances would you delete an article about a real person under WP:CSD#A7? Specifically, you once deleted the article Adrian Criṣan which is now a redirect to a stub. Should the target stub be deleted? If so, what would it need to avoid deletion? Under what circumstances would you undelete such an article on request, after you had deleted it?

A: A7 is very clear: A person, group, company or organisation that does not assert notability. A7 doesn't mean "not notable", although that's certainly part of it; even if there is an assertion of notability, the page should be either prod'd or AfD'd through the usual process. The article you point out asserts notability - "professional Romanian table tennis player" - so if I deleted the article in its present form, it would be an inappropriate speedy deletion. If I deleted the article as it looks now, I made a mistake. To avoid speedy deletions, an editor needs to assert notability (specifically for A7), and to avoid PROD/AfD in general, it would be beneficial to cite as much as s/he can (particularly vital in the case of BLPs) to reliable sources. As an admin, I was always willing to provide copies of deleted articles as long as they were not copyright violations, attack pages or blatant advertising (and other blatant cases: nonsense, vandalism, test pages etc, as I see that exercise as pointless), and I've seen some good articles created from sandboxes after they've been deleted. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from J.Mundo

6: Can you explain in your own words what is meant by "when in doubt, don't delete"?

A: There are three types of deletions: CSD, PROD, and XfD. For CSD, it should be quite blatant; the article (or page) either meets the criteria or it doesn't. However, working with a number of people (admins and non-admins), there are sometimes elements of a page that look like it might meet CSD (a good example is G11 compared to an tone of advertising), but if you're unsure, don't delete. Let another admin look it over to get a second opinion (after all, as all admins know, not everything that appears in CSD is even remotely CSD-worthy). For PROD, it's generally pretty standard, but you should always read the article first. It's possible that a legitimate page was tagged and no-one noticed it. If in doubt, send it to AfD for other opinions, or in obvious cases, remove the tag. AfD is slightly different, in that the process is mainly consensus-based. Therefore, if you see there is clearly no consensus, close it as such, or in less obvious cases (few comments, for example), there's no harm in relisting it once to garner more opinions. To conclude in one sentence, if you doubt a page should be deleted, don't delete it; wait for a second opinion, or remove the tags in clear cases. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from user:zzuuzz

7: Could you discuss this grant of block exemption, and how it might compare to your current approach.

A: If I recall correctly, that user was unblocked by an admin, but his IP was blocked, and thus couldn't edit. The autoblock removal did nothing, so I granted the user IPblock-exemption. As proved by future events, that was a mistake, and the user ended up indefinitely blocked again. Understanding the significance of IPBE more, I would forward the issue to the checkuser mailing list, who can decide for themselves whether it's appropriate to grant this tool. This is because I could be inadvertently giving IPBE to the very user who is the reason for the IP/range hardblock, which would obviously defeat the purpose of the block in the first place. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Ling.Nut

8:I hate to put the brakes on the love-in taking place just below, but no really, and forgive my pseudo-cursing, but WTF? Please don't say "I dunno, I was busy, I wasn't thinking, I was in the shower & didn't hear the phone ring." I also actually don't wanna hear you're sorry (yes we do know that you're sorry). We have a whole process for choosing admins. People log in and !vote, people gripe and moan, people argue and tear their hair out. It's not a part of the Bermuda Triangle of Drama (ANI, RfC, RFAR), but you can definitely hear the rumbles all over Misplaced Pages. Its existence and significance are almost impossible to miss... esp. after, you know, you yourself went through RfA. What manner of decision-making led you to believe that subverting it was not a matter of great import? Dude, you weren't simply making a minor faux pas; you made a three-alarm error (but the alarms apparently never went off in your head), and you were lucky. So. Please do expand on the decision-making process that took place. Tell me about those alarms that didn't go off. Enquiring minds wanna know. Ling.Nut 03:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait. User:PeterSymonds/Apology is not enough? What exactly do you want him to do? Build a time machine, go back, and not do it? J.delanoy_adds 04:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I'm asking for. I thought the content of my question was crystal clear. I do not want an apology; I want an explanation of the decision-making process. Sorry if I was unclear, though. Ling.Nut 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds
• Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2

• 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

• My interactions with Peter have been nothing but great. His reactions, for lack of a better of word, to this desysoping was marvelous, as he soon returned and started to build the encyclopedia. Peter has learned his lesson, and I have confidence that he will not repeat such a mistake again. Maxim_(talk) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to say that Q8 is unnecessary. It's like asking someone who ran a red light and got in an accident to give a detailed description of their thoughts beforehand. There is no in-depth thinking going on beforehand. Likely, if there had been, you would not have done it. You know what you are doing is wrong/stupid, but you don't think about the possible consequences. No large, intricate thought processes or decision making. You just do it. J.delanoy_adds 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
2. Strong Support for doing the right thing for Misplaced Pages - as nominator. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
3. 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)

   Vote for Pedro! —Animum (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Support Yes. Sam 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - It's about time he got it back. :) VX! 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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 Wartenberg 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
9. support great admin who messed up.--Patton 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
10. One retarded error in judgment, but he's hardly likely to do it again...Moreschi (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
12. Support I have no problem with him getting the tools back. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. I know that he will not repeat the error ever again. bibliomaniac15 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong support as co-nom. –Juliancolton 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)

    Note Moved from RFA talk as a pre-transclusion comment per the editors request. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
18. Strong support I have interacted with Peter several times, all have been excellent. Well-rounded, and good user. Spencer 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
20. Support, quite certainly. --Amalthea 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
22. Support: Yes! --Chasingsol 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
24. Support I see no evil here. I am happy to believe that Peter has learned from his mistake. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
25. Yuppers - I love a comeback! --David Shankbone 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
26. So that was the August incident! Fine by me. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
28. I never knew he was desysopped. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
31. Strong Support (ec) Peter is a great Wikipedian. I know him mostly from around the Simple Misplaced Pages. 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)
32. Support --Chris 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
33. Support I thought he was one already. Guess I was right.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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 CSD Survey Results 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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 Postlethwaite 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
36. Duh. No question. One lapse in judgment, lesson learned. Won't happen again. --NrDg 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
39. Full support - Peter's gained my trust back. Xclamation point 00:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
40. Support per Useight. LittleMountain5 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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 PANDA 01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. You can haz mop back. FlyingToaster 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
44. Support - Yes.Res2216firestar 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
45. Of course. Wizardman 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
46. Strong support I trust in PeterSymonds, and although he made a mistake, I still trust in him and I know that he will be a good sysop, just like before the mistake. —_macy 01:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
47. I've worked with Peter elsewhere under the WMF umbrella, and don't think I could be particularly neutral when closing this RfA. As a result, I'm recusing myself from my bureaucrat duties so that I can support a solid candidate. Mistakes were made, but I trust that Peter understands that and won't squander the community's trust in the future. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. In truth, my initial reaction was to oppose, on the basis that the cannon-fodder regular editors who do the real work around here are frequently advised to wait for six months after far less egregious incidents than the one described here, and opposed because they have not. What changed my mind was the belief that having worked through the aftermath of "the August incident", PeterSymonds would probably the administrator least likely to do something like that again. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Nick (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - Tiptoety 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
51. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
52. Riding Shotgun support Seddσn 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - He made a mistake. I think he did the right thing by stepping down at that time. He's did a lot of great work before becoming an admin, he did a lot of great work as an admin, and he's done a lot of great work since stepping down. I have no reservations about Peter regaining the bit, and I am confident that he has learned from his mistakes and will not repeat them. لennavecia 02:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - Roger that! :-) ~ Troy (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
55. Support, although not in good company. Prodego 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Huh? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    What are you trying to say? --Jake Wartenberg 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    It means I while I think Peter should be an admin, I don't think many of the support !votes are necessarily well thought out. Prodego 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    We do need to start grilling "supports" as hard as we grill opposes. WilyD 15:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

56. Support I think you've worked hard to re-establish the trust the community had in you before August, and I don't think you'll do something like that again. You were a good admin before, and I believe you'll be a good admin again. There's been a lot of admin resignations recetnyl, and giving you the mop back is a net positive. Best, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
57. Support You'll be a janitor once again... flaminglawyer 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Isn't it about time to drop the ridiculous "janitor" homily? Do you know of any school, for instance, where the janitor decides who gets expelled? It's kind of grating to have to keep listening to this ludicrous nonsense about mops and so forth. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Janitors take out the trash (deleted articles, vandalism) so the analogy is more of janitor/security gaurd. Admins don't expel. That's up to ArbCom. And I never wanted to do more than cleanup the place myself. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Exactly. Admins are like janitors. They have mops. They clean up stuff. The only differences are that admins are not predominantly Mexican (and that's not a stereotype, it's the truth) and that people can actually hold a conversation with most admins in a language other than Spanish (and that's a stereotype). flaminglawyer 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry my mistake. I had been led to believe that administrators had access to something called a block button. Can't think where I got that silly idea from. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Well, it might be a stretch but if you are familiar with Bruce Almighty, the "janitor" at Omnipresence turns out to wield other powers. Useight (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

58. You did make a blunder, but you've learned from it. Therefore, I treat this as I would treat a reconfirmation RFA for any respectable user: Support. —Animum (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. Tan | 39 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
60. Strong support as co-nominator. My reasoning listed in the nomination statement. iMatthew // talk // 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. I was unfamiliar with the history before reading into it, but the documentation in the links is thorough. Based on the information given and the discussion here, I see no reason to oppose and many reasons to support. FaerieInGrey (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
62. Dramallama...I mean, support. Just don't do anything rogue like that again :) Daniel (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Yes. MBisanz 04:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
64. Thought he was already an admin support. Heh. Keeper funny. what, too soon? :-) Keeper | 76 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Well, technically, he was... flaminglawyer 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    That's the joke. :) –Juliancolton 04:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

65. Support, clearly. Oren0 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Mercy is clearly earned.--King Bedford I 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
67. Support stay on the case...Modernist (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. rspεεr (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Good editor who made a bizarre mistake, but has since re-earned our trust and is highly unlikely to make that mistake again. --JayHenry (t) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
70. Support — Absolutely. Was actually going to co-nom myself, though, iMatthew up there took nominated before I did (no worries), so I'll just say what I have to say here. Yes, PeterSymonds caused a very big and unexpected incident in August, but after taking a month-long break, he continued editing like nothing ever happened. That shows true dedication to the project. Most users who made big mistakes and cause a large amount of controversy usually leave Misplaced Pages, use right to vanish, create socks, etc. (yes, I've seen several do so). But PeterSymonds did three things those people who left did not do: learned, apologized, and moved on, as if nothing happened. Heck, he's still apologizing for what he did up to today! Obviously, Peter is very sorrowful for what he did, and he's definitely not doing something like that again. PeterSymonds is probably the first person I've ever asked to nominate for adminship, so yes, I do think he is one of the most trusted editors I know out there. He is civil, helpful, always involved in discussions and adminly-areas, and an overall good candidate for another chance as an administrator. I trust PeterSymonds as an administrator, and I trust he will not make another stupid mistake like that again. Trust... it's that simple. — RyanCross (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
71. Strong support Lesson learned. Good admin who deserves the tools back. Enigma 06:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
72. Yes, Yes, Yes - The guy rocks. — Realist 07:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - Essentially agree with JayHenry (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Per my reasoning on Geni's RfA, everyone deserves a second chance and my only encounters with Peter have been positive. Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
75. Seems fair. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
76. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
77. Support - Lapses in judgement happen, mistakes are made, but I'm sure he has learnt from them. Matt (Talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
78. Support I believe in redemption. WereSpielChequers 10:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
79. Blind Support: Mistakes do happens and it is highly important to appreciate people who learns from them.. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
80. He was always an asset to ~the project~ Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. He accepted his mistake and continued helping and positively contributing. Good signs. -- Mentisock 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
82. Support – Yep. — sephiroth bcr 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
83. Support - He's learned from his mistakes in the past. I trust him with the tools.--Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 13:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
84. Strong Support Definitely. I see him all the time at the help desk and have seen him occasionally at DYK. Excellent contributor, has excellent knowledge of policy and very helpful. Just the kind of stuff that an admin should be made of IMO. Chamal 13:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
85. Support based on (a) his record and (b) his conduct since the incident. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
86. Support --ROGER DAVIES  14:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
87. Strong Support I have full faith in Peter that he will not make this mistake again. I hope i can trust him with sysop rights and not do this again. Arctic Fox 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
88. Yeah, sure. I'm a little wary, but hopefully Peter's learned his lesson. GlassCobra 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
89. Support I've found him to be one of the most polite users. He has a good tone, is helpful and overall has the right attitude for an administrator. To err is human — I feel certain that he has learnt from his mistake. — Aitias // discussion 15:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
90. Support There is no question but that he will be a good administrator, because he already proved that. I am impressed with Peter's openness and honesty about this, and trust him absolutely not to make this kind of judgment error again. It would be detrimental to Misplaced Pages not to adminify him - waste of a good resource. --Bonadea (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
91. –xeno (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
92. Support -- Scorpion 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
93. Support - Everyone makes mistakes. It's what we do afterwards that matters and Peter seems committed to positive editing. TN‑X-Man 16:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
94. Support - Peter made a mistake, but he is a human, not God. After analyzing his edits, I found that he is very polite, and helpful. And his article work is A+. AdjustShift (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
95. Support - everyone makes mistakes. Jauerback/_dude. 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
96. Strong Support - People will always make mistakes, and I definetly think Peter has learned from it. Great work as an admin previously, and my trust in him has not changed even after the August incident. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
97. Support - Although he made an error in judgement, he ate his fish and tried to put the incident behind him by continuing to be an asset to the project. Will make a fine admin (again!) Richard 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
98. Support. →Na·gy 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
99. Absolutely. Stwalkerster 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
100. Strong support it seems like I'm Peter's 100th supporter again. It was a one time incident. I'm quite sure Peter will never do this here again. All in all, the community were just benefiting when Peter had the sysop status. Having him back is a positie move, despite the incident. He has my full trust. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
101. Strong Support - He's English, ergo, he makes one mistake and then conquers the World. He's a great guy and one mistake won't make me not trust him. Scarian 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
102. Strong support (ec) Well, I wanted WP:100 but I guess Kanonkas got here before me! Oh well, WP:101 will do ;). Peter is a very responsible user, who I have had many great interactions with. He is committed to the project and has even helped me (ironic I know) with some article building. The incident in August has passed now, and I'm 200% sure that he won't even dream of doing something like this again and Peter deserves the tools back. I hope to see you around back at your admin tasks soon Peter! :) The Helpful One 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     Ah well, I guess it's WP:102 now! The Helpful One 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

103. Strong Support Peter's one of those few editors who I would still trust with the tools. - Jameson L. Tai 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
104. Strong Support: Very helpful volunteer at WP:HELP. --KnowledgeHegemony 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
105. Weak Support. It's hard for me to trust you with the tools after the account sharing, but my interactions with you allow me to lend you another chance. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
106. support--Mardetanha 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
107. — neuro 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
108. Support. -- lucasbfr 18:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
109. Strong support per positive interactions back when we both used to work at WP:DYK, and his other contributions I've seen about the place. Sometimes when sysops get in trouble they fight to the last to keep their bit, then start protracted 'right this injustice' campaigns when they lose. This tends to be far from helpful to the project whether they deserved de-sysopping or not. Peter on the other hand gave up the tools without fuss, and then proceeded to demonstrate that he's worthy of our trust by just carrying on doing good work. I take this as a strong sign of his maturity and ability to regard adminship as the proverbial no big deal. Welcome back! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
110. Weak support. Peter was a fabulous admin, and I'm sure will be again. Letting him have the bit back will be a net asset to the project, I'm sure. However, the fiasco that caused the loss of the bit still troubles me. If he's learned from it, and never does anything as bone-headed again, we all win. If he hasn't learned from it, I expect the hammer will be brought done quickly and firmly.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
111. Automatic support. Sceptre 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
112. Support No real worries as he wasn't the one showing the lack of maturity when the schoolyard hijinks were uncovered GTD 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
113. Uber support I've been bugging him on IRC forever trying to get him to do this. J.delanoy_adds 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     He uses IRC? I may have to reconsider my support. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     LOL. :) Then you would be opposing a lot more Malleus. You should probably just sit there so you know who to not trust. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     Whats so bad about real-time conversation? Synergy 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     'twas a joke. Don't worry. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     Malleus has a sense of humour? ...Seriously? Scarian 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

     I've heard stories and legends about mythical places where editors can go to get justice when they feel that they've been subjected to personal attacks. Are the legends true? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

114. Fuck yes. Garden. 21:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
115. I had been considering whether to raise the idea of resysopping this editor with my fellow arbitrators before someone else brought it up this week. It is clear that both the candidate and others familiar with the history have drawn the appropriate lessons from this incident. And apart from that one issue, there are no other concerns, as Peter's editing and prior administrator service make him a fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
116. Support Am convinced that lesson has been learned and that we should be willing to give people another chance when that is evident. Davewild (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
117. Support, but let it be known that I strongly dislike most of the comments (there are definitely exceptions, such as Pedro's) responding to opposers below. People are allowed to oppose for many reasons, and in this case, there is certainly (at least) one perfectly valid reason to do so. This isn't a Kurt Weber situation, people- let others voice their opinions without chastizing them for doing so. Now, with all of that said, I trust that Peter won't make the same mistake he made before, and I have no doubt that he will once again be a valuable admin- considerably more valuable, for example, than I am as an admin. But that's just my view. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
118. SupportWhy not, good contribs and seems he has learnt from his mistake. Andy (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
119. Strong Support. We need him back again! SchfiftyThree 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
120. Strongest possible support - what happeend is in the past and he regrets that moment of "stupidity" and its through their mistakes people learn a lesson and he has learnt his..Give him back the tools because now he can be trusted more than ever!! ...--Cometstyles 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
121. Support, I like to think that the candidate has learnt from their error, but they should be warned that I'll be out for their head if they make another poor judgement call like the one that previously got them desysopped. Lankiveil 23:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC).
122. miranda 00:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
123. Support - I would hope that Peter knows better now...so a net positive to the project. —Ed 17 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
124. Support. The past is in the past... would be great to have you back. · AndonicO 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
125. Support Sorry I'm so late to the party... Can't really say anything that hasn't been said. Thingg 00:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
126. Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)