Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments to another page, but not here.

Closed as "successful". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds

PeterSymonds (talk • changes)

End date: 1 December 2008 Hello there, I'm Peter; most of you probably know me. I'm nominating myself for adminship because I feel I could be quite useful. I've never self nominated before so I will explain myself as best I can:

Per the Wikiquote:Criteria for administratorship:

• I have been active quite a while now, and have over 400 edits. I believe my edits are good quality, as the articles I write are all sourced, simplified and conform to the accepted standard for Wikiquote articles.
• I know how to edit. I'm familiar with both the wikitext format and what to do to improve a Wikiquote article.
• My work has not solely centred on the mainspace, and I believe my contributions to the other mainspaces are good.

Experience-wise, I've served as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. In that time I accumulated 5074 administrative actions. However, as Wikiquote is currently a smaller community, there won't be much of a need for blocking users/protecting pages, or even editing protected pages, as most pages remain unprotected. Editing the MediaWiki mainspace would be useful, as I've had to make a few requests for updates, and further non-controversial edits such as that will be done. As far as the rest of the points go: I'm not power-hungry; I'm not arrogant, so I'm always willing to accept my mistakes and listen to advice, whatever level of experience that may come from; and I'm active here. My content work will remain as regular as it has done; as I say, adminship will just mean the ability to delete the odd unnecessary, edit protected pages and maybe one day block the odd vandal (but there's not so much of a need for that here!). Best regards, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Absolutely. He was a prior admin with a good head on his shoulders and he does great work everywhere he goes. Civil, thoughtful and energetic. Synergy 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. I don't know his work much on this wiki, but I know him a lot from IRC and the English Wikipedia, and I'm sure he'll be a good admin. Thehelpfulone 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong support - I disagree with the idea that because we don't need one really badly, we should oppose the user. Peter is such a good user, has asks several times for (like on WQ:AN) to add something to MediaWiki:, knows how we do things and learns quickly, and is a very positive part of Simple English Wikiquote. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support – Absolutely! I've found PeterSymonds to be the most helpful, thoughtful and nicest person I've ever met in my time here around the Wikimedia Foundation projects. He has contributed to simple.wikiquote quite often, and I'm sure he'll be a fine administrator. Also, I always thought more administrators was a plus. Will it be harmful to add another administrator? No, I don't believe so. It would only benefit our wiki. If an admin is needed while other administrators are offline, he can probably be there to do what is needed. PeterSymonds lives far away from where American Eagle, SwirlBoy (not 100% sure though), and myself are, so he can watch simple.wikiquote while we're out. Also, Coppertwig tends be be active and inactive at times, so Peter can fill in for those spots too. Happy to support. You'll do just fine, PeterSymonds. – RyanCross (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support good interactions with the candidate. I believe they should be fine here! --Kanonkas 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Good, trustworthy individual. Shapiros10 19:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Needs moar cowbell ^_^. ס (Samekh) ^Talk 00:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support per encounters across Wikimedia and on IRC. Juliancolton 06:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We don't need any more admins at this time. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   What a horrid reason--there's no quota for admins, if a user is trusted to do admin tasks, they should have the opportunity to them instead of waiting for other admins.--Maxim_(talk) 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose might change to Support Sorry, but I could expect some more time for you to become an admin. ✞Static(talk) 13:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote intended, no reason given.--Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Opposes without reason are acceptable, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, "Some people who oppose RfAs do not explain their opposition. This does not make their votes inherently worthless. While it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind the opposition as it does not give an administrator nominee useful feedback, RfA contributors are not required to explain their opposition." It should be counted, but reasons are appreciated. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

For anyone wondering about the edit summary on Thehelpfulone's support, he was in the #cvn-simplewikis (the recent changes IRC feed) channel fixing the bot problem. I persuaded him to come edit here as well; we know each other from the English Wikipedia, so the request hasn't been discussed on IRC (certainly not in a canvassing sort of way). PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats correct. He was helping me fix the bot problem, as I have ops there. The channel shows all all edits made on 4 different simple wiki's to fight vandalism. Synergy 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm this also. Thehelpfulone 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.