Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] PeterSymonds

Final (100/0/1); ended 14:24, 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)

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)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. PeterSymonds | talk 05:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Two questions from ArcAngel

4. 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.

5. 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.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, could you describe/summarise:

• 6. Generally, why and when should someone be blocked?

• A: Only when it's necessary to deter the user from causing further disruption to the encyclopedia. For example, if the user created an account purely for vandalism purposes, they can be indefinitely blocked to protect the encyclopedia's integrity. If an IP commits a high level of recent vandalism, and has received the appropriate warnings, then they should be blocked for as short a time as possible. This is especially true with school IPs, but they can often be blocked in stages for up to a year. This is an undesirable but sometimes necessary step to avoid high levels of vandalism. Other reasons for blocking would be persistent BLP infringements, copyright violations, privacy violations (such as disclosing personal information, which I would immediately send to WP:RFO), and legal threats against others. However, no IP, school or otherwise, should be indefinitely blocked.

• 7. When would it be appropriate to protect a page?

• A: Semi-protection of a page can occur if the page receives an extraordinarily high level of vandalism -- whether that be article, user or project space -- or when an article is subject to continuous BLP or NPOV violations. It should only be used in response to these, and never as a pre-emptive measure. Full protection can only be used in severe content disputes, such as an edit war, and for as short a time as possible. It can also be used when the talk page of a blocked/banned user is used inappropriately by the user, or when, for example during a deletion review, Special:Undeleted contents can be made temporarily visible to non-admins if it would significantly aid the discussion, but fully protected from editing.

• 8. When would it be appropriate to speedily delete a page?

• A: When it meets the WP:CSD criteria. I won't go through all of them, but articles can be deleted when it's a biography of a person that doesn't indicate significance; a band, company or organization can also be deleted under this criteria. If the article is pure vandalism (eg. "I ate pancakes for breakfast and they were effing sweet"); if the article is a copyright violation; if the article fails to establish context ("There was a man who saw a dog"); if the article is a blatant advertisement; if the article is an attack page ("X is horrible"). Further acceptable instances would be when the primary author requests deletion, non-controversial housekeeping (eg. accidental duplicate article names by new users), XfD recreations, patent nonsense ("xccjfoolllllldsssssdfvr"). Redirects that lead to a deleted article, talk pages of deleted articles, redirects from article to userspace and redirects formed by implausible typos can also be deleted through CSD.

• 9. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.

• A: The first thing to remember is that consensus is not a vote. If it's on a talk page, consensus is usually about inclusion of certain items that relate to the article. Therefore, if say, six users support a proposal to move a page, citing naming conventions, and eight users oppose giving no policy objection, I would work on the consensus provided by the users who have backed up their arguments. On XfD, the debate would usually be inclusion criteria, often WP:Notability. If an article was nominated about a minor small-town politician, and four users say it fails WP:POLITICIAN, especially if the article had no sources to verify notability claims, then I would work with that consensus. At deletion review, users will be arguing for their articles to be restored, or for a kept article to be deleted. Consensus would need to be established through WP:N or WP:V; a user saying "I don't like this" or "yeah it looks alright" is not an effective argument. At WP:RM, which would be debated on talk pages, consensus can be drawn from naming conventions or WP:MOS#Titles. If six editors cite a specific convention, then that's where the consensus comes from. When determining consensus, WP:COMMONSENSE must be used at all times; if it looks fishy, check it out.

• 10. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Check exactly how many times they've reverted. If it's more than three, I would fully protect the page as an edit war for as short a time as possible, and begin a discussion immediately. I would then ask them both to explain their reasoning as to why they are reverting, and more specifically, ask for a policy to back this up. If JohnDoe's version contains something like a BLP violation, an unsourced statement, removal of content, and JaneDoe's reversion was "per WP:BLP", then common sense would tell me to restore JaneDoe's version, and advise JohnDoe of the policy and ask him to ask me about anything he doesn't understand. The page would then be unprotected, and I would keep a close eye on it. If JohnDoe persists, and has received four warnings (probably not template warnings), then he can be blocked for persistent disruption.

Optional question from Jakew

• 11. Looking through your contributions, a very large number seem to be marked as minor edits. Is there any reason for this?

• A: Yes, I consider most edits to be minor per WP:MINOR. CSDs, AIVs and other reports are all marked as minor by default. AfD reports are naturally marked as major edits, and other major edits include significant content like new articles, or substantial sections or deletions (except if uncontroversial ones, for example vandalism or content in my userspace). Therefore, I judge most of my edits as minor, and this is manual (I don't have the "mark all edits as minor" option switched on).

[edit] General comments

• See PeterSymonds's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for PeterSymonds: PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] 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)

It took some time for Kakafonous's numbers to come up, too. Tan | 39 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Too late. Rudget (Help?) 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

I don't know either, but I prefer to use this.Balloonman (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As do I, which is why I like the userlinks template that includes it - and why I'm glad that template is used to provide the links shown above. I think the talk-page count is good as a snapshot of the candidate's contribs at the opening of the Rfa, but a live (and cross-linked) count is much better. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
2. Support I was thinking of nominating him myself. Epbr123 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Per this, this, this (in response to an AIV report), and this. Rudget (Help?) 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
5. Support the editor seems to have good understanding of policies, so abuse of tools seems highly unlikely AVand^talk_contribs 15:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
8. Yup. "No problems here", a wise editor once said...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

   Heehee, see support 11. =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

9. Support. No negatives I see. -JodyB _talk 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
11. Support. No problems here. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
14. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I find no reason to vote otherwise. Well rounded candidate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, someone who digs in with one day's notice to save a pending mainpage article from embarrassing us, and prevent a trip to WP:FAR, is a trustworthy asset to Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
19. Support Ability & attitude shown so far make me believe Peter will make a great admin. --Rodhullandemu 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. Solid nominators, has the trust of a lot of people, nothing I could find in some contribution digging revealed anything questionable. I trust this candidate with the tools. Tan | 39 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
21. per nom Dlohcierekim 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Questions from jc37 notwithstanding, I can find no problems with this candidate. ArcAngel (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
23. -- Naerii 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - Decent responses. We could get into the various details (For example, based upon surrounding context, there's a sentence or two that I think may misrepresent what the candidate meant), however, I have a feeling that, upon further, albeit longer, discussion, the candidate would either learn-as-we go, or already know/understand the information. Should be fine. - jc37 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Per WP:PEDRO MBisanz ^talk 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. Great work at WP:FAC, no negatives. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Mainspace contribution looks good. And as well as per WP:PEDRO and WP:Balloonman :)--NAHID 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
28. I was wondering when this would happen. A very civil, hardworking user who would do no end of good with the tools. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. Per Balloonman (talk · contribs), Pedro (talk · contribs), and some excellent and admirable contributions to the project. Cirt (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Well informed, detailed answers; great contribs; great admin candidate! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Thirty First........Do I win the latest nominator v. support position prize? Per, well, me! Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    No I guess I don't - looks like Baloonman will come after me - gee and people are supporting per your nominators when we're both clearly no use at all! :) Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

32. Beat-the-nom Support!!!1!1 (lol) great answers to questions, noms I really respect. Good luck with the tools! Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I don't know what makes you say that. The answer to question 10 (yes, there are 10 questions already) is flat-out wrong. Fully-protecting a page when two edit warriors have both breached 3RR?! Splash - tk 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

33. Support. An excellent candidate who meets my criteria. Contributes to the mainspace, communicates with other editors, and has plenty of experience. Useight (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
34. Support yep. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Support: Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
36. Pile on support, expressing standard surprise this editor isn't already an admin. I've noticed nothing but thoughtful arguments at AfD, solid knowledge of deletion policy, and good communication. The mop will be in excellent hands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Support, seems to be an exceptially well-rounded editor; lots of work in the Article space, works with some of the pre-adminy tasks, and helps out at the Help Desk! -- Natalya 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Support - Unlikely to abuse tools. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - Wow. Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Good user. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
41. As promised! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Support No problems here.--Bedford 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - My first encounter with Peter was when Monarchy of the United Kingdom was on the main page, and I had noted that images weren't lining up properly when I looked at the article logged out. Peter, instead of using various guidelines as an excuse for the problem, took me seriously and checked for himself, saw the issues I was concerned about, and worked to rectify them in a way that worked for the encyclopedia and its readers. Peter "gets it." Risker (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools. KTC (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - clearly for the benefit of the project. Pundit|utter 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - No problems here. --Sharkface^T/_C 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Solid editor - clearly dedicated to improving the encyclopedia and unlikely to abuse the tools. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Great Editor. Welcomed me on my first day. Very polite. SimsFan^{Talk to Me • Commons} 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Incidentally, I wonder whether his username is a reference to Peter Symonds College in Winchester - I have some friends who went there. Walton^One 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    No!. Small world though! Pedro :  Chat  08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

52. Support - A well-rounded editor doing the stuff that needs doing in various corners of the project.  Frank  |  talk  10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - no concerns. Deb (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - No concerns whatsoever. Candidate looks perfect for the job. asenine ^{say what?} 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - From what I have seen in AfD, his rationales in discussions are well reasoned and observe policy. I believe he will be a sound admin. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - from my interactions with him he seems to be fine on policies and building the encyclopaedia. David Underdown (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
57. Normally I'd oppose anyone who wants to work in CSD, but the noms suggest this user is cautious, so I support this candidate. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    I know what you mean... I don't like CSD'ers either. They are generally too gung ho about deleting articles and IMHO bity. Which is why I took a long hard look at this candidates CSD history. I didn't find anything to frighten me.Balloonman (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

58. Pile-on Support Unlikely to abuse tools, has good experience in many admin-related areas. Good luck! STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
59. Support as I could not find any jump out negatives. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
60. SupportTotally!-- Barkjon  21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
61. Support As per, well, everyone above. No need to restate the wonders of this user. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. Seen this user around quite a lot, good answers to questions, frequent FA contributor. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
63. Support, although this - "Adminship would just mean being able to do things myself rather than asking someone else to do it for me" - concerns me. Strikes me as someone who just wants the tools to save time... selfish, maybe? But, after reviewing some of the other commentary, I'll allow for the possibility that the candidate meant something more noble and up to par with why I think someone should be interested in being an administrator... and merely chose an ill-advised phrase. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    Candidate has addressed my concern to a satisfactory level, in my opinion. I now whole-heartedly support this candidate. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

64. Weak support. I'm a little concerned by the candidate's defence of marking most of his edits as minor, as many of these edits substantially change the meaning of the page concerned (here, for example, the candidate reverses his position on an AfD), and almost all talk page contributions seem to be marked minor, with the result that anyone who hides minor edits on their watchlist will not see these. However, in fairness to the candidate this was the only problem I found in his contributions, and it is ... ahem ... a minor problem. I don't see any reason not to trust this user. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
65. Support Very helpful user, esp. at the help desk. Spencer^T♦C 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
66. Support - Can not find any reason to oppose. Tiptoety ^talk 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
67. Support. Echo Tiptoety: I tried and I tried and I tried. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
68. Support - A wonderful helpful editor. Keep up the good work! Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - hes a bit of a mystery to me, but he meets my standards and raises no concerns. Plusses include rollback rights and "honours" like barnstars. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
70. Support: Stunning editor/writer with a good knowledge of policy. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
71. Support. Has clue (viz., Rudget's links), and is trustworthy. Good luck, Anthøny 22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
72. Support I'm not going to support solely because I find no reason to oppose, but because I find a lot of reasons to support. Cenarium (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
73. Support - Shudde ^talk 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
74. Support For solid contributions, sound knowledge of policy, and general clue-ness. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
75. Support This one's easy. Good luck! GlassCobra 03:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
76. Strong support - A fine candidate. Terrific article work. And a great knowledge of Wiki-policies and such like. Will be a brilliant admin. Lradrama 08:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
77. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
78. Support I have always had a great experience dealing with this user at WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
79. Support as per above, everything looks good! Tiggerjay (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
80. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
81. Support No apparent grounds for objection and his remark - "Adminship would just mean being able to do things myself rather than asking someone else to do it for me" - fits in entirely with my own ethos. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
82. Support. He's excellent as an article-writer, and I can see no evidence that he would be any less excellent as an administrator. Coemgenus 19:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
83. Strong Support I've seem PeterSymonds around making constructive edits. While looking me closely of his actions from this RFA, I would say this user is trusted enough to have the tools. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
84. Looks like a good user. Acalamari 02:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
85. Strong support. Civil, highly intelligent Featured Article writer. No reason to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
86. Support. Singopo (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
87. Support Very helpful and kind, takes his time and is dedicated to his work, a rare ardor to find anywhere. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
88. Great editor. Very helpful as well in his work at the help desk. EJF (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Appears to be a good solid contributor with no apparent tendencies which preclude being given the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
90. Support I have encountered Peter a few times while editing royalty articles and he has always been a consistently friendly and helpful editor and I feel that those are very desirable attributes to have in an administrator. Even though I am far from being a model editor, I think I know one when I see one and I wholly endorse Peter's RFA. Charles 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
91. SupportKa Pai Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
92. Support strong, experienced candidate who will put the tools to great use. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
93. Strong Support: Just wondering how I missed supporting you -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
94. Support: Good editor. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
95. Support I've had no problems at all with this editor and it definitely looks like he'd make effective and well-reasoned use of the tools. ~ mazca ^talk 13:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
96. Strong Support: I normally don't !vote on RFA's, but your answers blew me away. Looks like you'll make 100. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
97. Support because...rats, someone already mentioned that OK, user is...crap, already mentioned Ummmm I really liked your answ...grr, #96 said it... All right then...

    Support Because All the Good Reasons Are Already Taken :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

98. Support Trustworthy -- Avi (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
99. With about an hour and a half left before this can be closed, I must Oppose as you failed to meet my expectationsBalloonman (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
100. Support Very nice contributions I belive he will use the tools correctly, will be a excellent admin. WP:100 --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  13:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral

1. STICK IT TO THE MAN =D the lone neutral Sirkad_talk^sign 23:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

   Why? Just for variety? Malinaccier (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Don't worry Malinaccier, no "reason" for neutral was given. The 'crats are smarter than "stick it to the man". Leave it be. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.