Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2

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

PeterSymonds

Nomination

Final (197/16/5); Closed by Rlevse at 23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) –
Nomination from Pedro

Dear colleagues, a slightly unusual RFA here and let us all hope that it will be sans drama. PeterSymonds was an administrator, passing his RFA at 100/0/1 on 12 May 2008. In August evidence came to light that Peter had knowingly allowed his account to be used by others. He requested desysopping and resigned under a cloud. Two bullets for ease:

• User:Deskana notes the events at WP:ANI [1]
• ARBCOM motion that PeterSymonds may reapply for the tools via RFA [2]

Now, of course it would have been easy for Peter 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 Wikipedia. I knew what an administrator was, but I only know of two admins that were close "friends" of mine. I hadn't, at the time, realized that there happen to be more helpful administrators around the website. The first one I ran into, was PeterSymonds. I had requested page protection once, and PeterSymonds was the one to protect it. From there on out, I noticed that nine out of ten times, when I requested protection of a page, PeterSymonds was the one to protect it, and I considered that very helpful. It may have been a time where there were not many active admins at RFPP, but I was always running into him there.

When the incident happened in August, I was a semi-established editor, and had realized that his actions were not be appropriate for an administrator. I was very surprised to hear that he was involved in the incident. I followed the thread and read the conversations involving him, and he was nothing but apologetic and understanding that he made a huge mistake. He voluntarily gave his tools up, and took a break. I couldn't think of a better way to handle the situation if I tried. He then returned, and since then has been nothing less than extremely helpful. My requests for help from him with anything related to Wikipedia are answered almost immediately, and when he offers his help, it's exactly what I'm looking for. He's always around to assist whether it is copy-editing an article, helping find a consensus in articles and discussions, or offering random advice and assistance.

Of all the users who should have the extra tools, I believe he tops the list and is ready to get them back and start using them in good faith again. I hope that everyone is able to see past the incident, and realize that PeterSymonds is one hell of an editor, and will be nothing but a net positive to the community, once again. iMatthew // talk // 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Juliancolton (talk · contribs) — This is only my second RfA co-nomination, which proves that I view PeterSymonds as one of the most valuable members of the community. Pedro covered pretty much everything, and I agree with his nomination entirely. Peter has already proven to us that he can be trusted with the tools. His admin actions were accurate and well-thought out, and his contributions, both before, during, and after adminship have been helpful, constructive, and productive. He is one of the few editors who can strike a perfect balance between article writing and work in administrative areas. A polite and friendly user, Peter often answers questions at various noticeboards, including the help desk, exhibiting his experience and ability with newbies. Peter did make a rather large mistake, but I see it as nothing more than a temporary lapse in judgment, which everybody has experienced. I can honestly say that I've never seen an editor, administrator of otherwise, with a perfect tract record. And while many editors show continued and persistent abuse or poor judgment, Peter got back on the horse and continued his work. He is still an administrator in his behavior and editing, just without the enabled tools. I expect that it will be extremely difficult for the community to overlook the incident in August, but it seems to me that Peter was too valuable an administrator to lose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted with thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The areas I frequently worked in were C:SD, WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:RFPP. Less frequently, but relatively often, I worked at WP:RM and WP:DRV. The administrative backlog at WP:RM has been burdened by only a few admins, so dealing with the older requests were occasionally helpful. Other areas I felt/feel comfortable working in were WP:DYK (relatively frequent updates; though the process itself has been altered), WP:PERM (granting rollback, account creator, NPW and AWB), CAT:PER, and CAT:UNBLOCK. I have relatively good experience in all these areas, so I would feel confident to work on these again. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I was the main author in four featured articles (1, 2, 3, 4). Two of them were GAs before promotion, and three of them were featured on DYK. I'm working on their elder sister in my userspace (here), which was significantly delayed because the only full biography was hard to find. As well as this, I have three DYKs (Henry Cockeram, Hugh Audley, Jane Loftus, Marchioness of Ely). Further to my as article work, I feel my effort outside the mainspace is beneficial, including giving opinions at WP:VP, assisting through WP:HD, and answering {{helpme}} requests should they appear. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: The main and the most serious incident was the August incident, in which, as described above, I knowingly allowed another user to access my account. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do, and I have (and continue to) apologise for it. I regret it deeply. The exact circumstances which led to the unfortunate incident are available in the diffs composed by Pedro above, and while I certainly lost your trust as a result, I can only promise that such an incident will not reoccur, and that my password is new and strong. The editing disputes I can remember are few (working in 19th century British royalty articles tends to keep you away from too much drama), but there have been administrative disputes in the past. One incident in early August involved the removal of rollback from one user (AN/I thread), a decision endorsed. I was somewhat involved in the Radio Wikipedia drama, which mainly involved deleting a few derivative copyright violations and closing down various threads (here and here). Those incidents, I feel, required action; but they did not cause undue stress. In conflicts such as this it is best to assume good faith, and try and maintain the calm. In the cases listed, there were no blocks required or issued, so the issue was resolved (by a number of people) successfully. For future conflicts, it is vital to be communicative, friendly, neutral and understanding, no matter how difficult it can be. If one becomes involved in a conflict, either directly or indirectly, it is important to remain open and discuss the issue, because suddenly shutting off half way through would just confuse the discussion. That is what I have done and will always try to do. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Tiptoety ^talk

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 Wikipedia. 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 ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 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^gabs_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 ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He's already given a reply in question 4, apparently already describing his thought processes of the time to the best of his memory. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 18:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was also clear that I considered earlier answers to be non-answers. Was that unclear? Again I apologize. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your intent is clear, but that it doesn't negate what I just said. See also J.delanoy's response. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter has already dealt with this (satisfactorily imo). If you don't like his answer then vote oppose. Asking him the same question again is quite silly. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Arcayne

9: Okay, you cocked things up for yourself in the past, and have toughed it out like a real mensch - I commend you, since not a lot of folk would. A few questions occure to me:

A In light of the recent wackiness during the Ecoleetage RfA, tell me what, if anything, is wrong with the RfA process, and what you would suggest as fixes.

We make judgements in the support or oppose sections based almost entirely on how the candidate conducts themselves on Wikipedia. Is that the fault of the RfA process? I would say probably not. The RfA process has a reputation of being rough on candidates, scaring potential candidates away; a place to release old grudges; a place of general drama. In some cases it is true, in some it is certainly not; but that is the stereotype RfA has been given. There are a few possible fixes to the RfA process that I have seen: EVula's current proposal on WT:RFA; boardvote type voting (votes from public view); secret ballot in which the commenter is only allowed to see other comments following his/her comment; "RfA board" in which a few elected candidates appoint administrators. Each of these have their advantages and disadvantages. Yes, the RfA system is "broken"; people have been saying that for a very long time, but I know of no solution that will fix it without complaint. This is perhaps, however, a better question for a potential bureaucrat. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

B The Open to Recall category has come under fire a number of times as being something added during RfA and discarded at the first sign that users just might make use of it. Speaking for no one but myself, it seems as though it is the wiki equivalent of kissing babies and eating pie with the locals. It serves as the tipping point for a great many voters on the fence about a candidate; being open to recall means there is a means to control an admin who might go rogue (or simply dickish). What is your view of WP:AOR? Should it be something that an admin can simply remove at will any time after the RfA process elects them?

Recall is undeniably a contentious issue, but I firmly believe that, if a candidate opens themselves to recall, they should make a criteria and stick with it, even when something happens that might result in its use. I'm not really going to express an opinion on the effectiveness of recall, because I know too little about the cases in which it's been attempted, but an admin should not simply dismiss recall when things get tough. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

C Also related to RfA and XfD, can you define your position on how to evaluate votes from new users (ie, canvassed/meatpuppeted votes) for validity? How about RfA votes from candidates' friends/enemies?

Canvassing and sock/meatpuppetry on RfA and XfD is obviously something that affects consensus. The bureaucrats can handle RfA, but in the case of XfD, consensus trumps any idea of a vote. If there were 7 "keeps" versus 4 "deletes", and the keepers expressed no substantive reason why this was an eligible article/template/page, etc, then of course they would be weighed far less during the final close. If suspicious, it may have to be taken to WP:SSP, WP:RFCU, or in urgent cases, WP:ANI. The key thing to note is that consensus is formed on the basis of the arguments within, and not simply the "keep" or "delete". Any XfD comment without a reason would probably be discounted altogether, except in obvious cases, because it gives no understandable argument either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Philcha:

10 After how many acts of vandalism in what period would you block a proven vandal?

A Well it depends entirely on the situation. This is whether the vandalism is coming from an IP (static/dynamic) or a vandalism-only account. In the case of a vandalism-only account, it should have three edits (3 warnings) before taking any action. Page-move vandalism and Grawp-type vandalism can be dealt with swiftly without the need for warnings. In the case of IPs, it really is impossible to say without context. A school or public facility IP may have up to 10 or more instances of vandalism before it's noticed. A static IP may have 3 or 4. In the case of minor vandalism starting up from a static IP, I would ideally like to see four edits (one warning each edit, depending on the severity) before a short block of 24 hours. Schoolblocks and anonblocks are all case-dependent. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

11 For how long should previous acts of vandalism be taken into account when deciding what to do with the most recent?

A For IPs, I would usually restart the warning cycle after a month. So for example, IP-A vandalised in December and received a level 1, 2 and 3 warning. IP-A the began vandalising in January, so I would issue a level one warning to restart the cycle. In the case of declared shared IPs (like schools) this should be obvious, but IPs change from person-to-person frequently, so this method is effective. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

12 For how long would you block vandals (registered or IP) on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th offences?

A We'll take the example of an IP first (I assume you mean offence after block). First offence block should be short (12/24 hours at admin discretion). 2nd offence, 48 hours. 3rd offence, 55 hours. 4th offence, 72 hours. 5th offence, 1 week. IP blocks (with the exception of sock puppets/Grawp, etc) should be kept as short as possible, for the reason that they could be 1) used by several hundreds or thousands of people, and 2) they change around a lot. Registered account vandalism-only account would be indefinite. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

13 Would you give shared IP addresses that have been used for vandalism more lenient treatment than is given to other vandals?

A By leniency, I'm assuming you mean length of block, and the answer is yes. Shared IP addresses can sometimes be used by many thousands of people, and thus blocking them needs to be done when necessary, and for as short a time as possible. A regular vandalism-only is not the same, and can be indefinitely blocked without much concern. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• 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^gabs_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 Wikipedia - 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 ^Blab 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 / ^C)} 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^Talk 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^t/c 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 ^{Tropical Cyclone} 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^T♦C 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^(talk) 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^TALK 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^PoppaBalloonCSD 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^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 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 ^Pounce! 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
38. Support per previous rationales. - 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^{duel • work} 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) Banned editor. Caulde 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    This shouldn't be struck out, it was left alone on Geni's recently closed RfA. iMatthew // talk // 10:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed. It was not made in violation of the ban which occurred only afterwards. Banning an editor does not make his good contributions void, so there is no reason to strike this !vote. Not that it really has any impact with the current support ratio. SoWhy 10:44, 22 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^{es: bot} 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 ^talk 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
51. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
52. Riding Shotgun support Seddσn ^talk 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 ^talk 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

    What are you trying to say? --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 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 ^talk 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)

    Agreed. Nor can I see any reason to do that. The only thing we were doing were requesting clarification on what seemed like it might be a veiled personal attack. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 13:01, 20 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^c 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^c 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 ^talk 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^c 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    That's the joke. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 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 ^{Seek his grace} 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 Wikipedia, 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^msg 06:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
72. Yes, Yes, Yes - The guy rocks. — Realist² 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 ^(converse) 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 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?/_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!) Richard⁰⁶¹² 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
98. Support. →Na·gy 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
99. Absolutely. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 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 positive 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^{Call me Pat!} 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)

     Nah, you're back to WP:101 now. :) LittleMountain5 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

103. Strong Support Peter's one of those few editors who I would still trust with the tools. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
104. Strong Support: Very helpful volunteer at WP:HELP. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 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 ^talk 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
107. [redacted by PeterSymonds] — neuro^(talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
108. Support. -- lucasbfr ^talk 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 ^(talk) 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^gabs_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 ^{Call me Pat!} 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)

     If you had a sense of humour you would have detected my comment to be sarcastic and not a personal attack. Gosh, everything everyone says to you is a personal attack, isn't it Malleus? No one can say anything, but you can say everything. Sad state of affairs, to be honest. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

     Scarian, it's normal for Malleus to subject others to his sensationalism whilst we just languish in the depths of the "incivility dungeon" for replying. Caulde 12:59, 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 ^(talk!) 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 ^{(speak to me)} 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 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
124. Support. The past is in the past... would be great to have you back. · AndonicO ^Engage. 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)
127. Support - This user was a great admin before, despite the incident. Everyone deserves a second chance! :) Versus22 _talk 04:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
128. Support -- Banjeboi 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
129. Support Most of what needs to be said has been said. :) --Knowzilla 08:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
130. Support. While he made an error in judgment, it was not one that resulted in any real harm to the project. He'd have to be a spectacular fool to make that mistake again, and all his edits before and after the incident suggest he's anything but that. He's been de-sysopped for quite long enough and we could certainly benefit from his services again. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
131. Support - per above. --Gwib (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
132. Support - events happen, circumstances change, life goes on. Gazimoff 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
133. Support - As per the nominators, and I have had nothing but positive interactions with the candidate.Graham Colm ^Talk 14:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
134. Support. As an admin on Simple English Wikiquote, PeterSymonds is kind, helpful and civil and shows good judgement. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
135. Support - Shit Happens. ₰imon^KSK 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
136. Very Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
137. S...Su...Sup...Supp...Suppo...Suppor...Support! - Got there in the end... just about. D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
138. BLINKING ALL CAPS SUPPORT FOR HIM!!!
     --Mixwell!^Talk 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
139. Support - If there is ever a next time, change your password! Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
140. Support. Peter has been a good admin in the past and he will be again. [In a year, I would support him for bureaucrat, if he applied.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
141. One hundred forty-first support is the Strongest In the oppose section, I see no reason why "I can't trust him with the tools anymore". During Peter's admin time, I saw no reason why he'd abuse the tools, as he didn't last time. Cheers! LucerneWorker^{user • talk • contribs} 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
142. Support User PeterSymonds committed an indiscretion when he allowed his admin account to be used by another user in Wikipedia in particular an admin or any user needs to be careful and misuse of one account is regarded seriously even editing from University IP address with fellow students or roommates who edit similar articles and vandalise has got users into trouble.But it also needs to be conceded that it was not a military project or it involved some state secret and the user regrets in lapse of judgment and the user has great track both as a editor and a Admin as far I could see.It is clear case of Assuming Good Faith and trust the user not to repeat it again.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
143. Yes. The majority of us know of Peter's past mistake - it was a clear error in judgement, and some would say, overall maturity. However, in his administrative tasks he was nothing less than excellent—well-trusted, due to consistently good decisions—and helpful overall. His response to the situation has made a greater difference than the size of the mistake itself; we didn't have a "defensive offender" syndrome here, but instead Peter attempted to be as open and honest as possible. I think EVula (below, in Oppose) summed it up perfectly. Mistakes happen to everybody, but I think this is one unique case where we can forgive and take a look at the trustworthiness he has continuously shown both before and after the incident. You never know when an admin may turn and do something obviously wrong after being trusted in the position for a while (it's happened more than a few times) - but at least we have a (former) one here who has obviously learned a big lesson from what he once did, and won't do it again. Strong support, good luck friend. :-) Jamie^☆S93 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
144. Everyone makes mistakes, but we are defined by how we respond to them. Peter's earnest response to his mistake -not to mention his excellent track record as an admin- makes Support of this RfA a no-brainer. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
145. Support. The lesson was learned and the user is well trusted. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
146. Pile-on Support Pick up that mop and get back to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
147. Support - the best of us make mistakes. Deb (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
148.  Sandstein  14:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
149. Support Why not? I saw no issue based on what I have read so far. America69 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
150. Support Reliable Forever^talk 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
151. Strong Support - PeterSymonds was an effective admin, and will be again. I'm convinced that his mistake was a one-off, which he has sufficiently apologised for; we can trust him not to make it again. Terraxos (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
152. Strong support. Will be, and was, a great admin. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
153. Never abused the tools when he had them, and my interactions with PeterSymonds were positive. Acalamari 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
154. Support Has obviously learned from his mistake, was an admin in good standing before it and has acted creditably and to the project's benefit in the time since. Orderinchaos 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
155. Support—If he makes another mistake, the mop will go away again. It's very simple… so let's give him the tools to continue demonstrating that he's generally a great administrator. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
156. Support. I have confidence that Peter will be an even better admin for the incident. Graymornings_(talk) 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
157. Support. per nom. Like Nihiltres said, if he makes a mistake, he'll be desysopped. No big deal. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
158. Strong Support A great user, who was a great admin and could still make good use of the tools :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
159. Support Yanksox (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
160. Support good user, always did great work at DYK. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
161. Support was a great admin who's clearly learned from his mistake. Wrelwser43 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
162. Support and trust People aren't infallible and aren't expected to be. Deserves another chance. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
163. Strong Support Although I have never directly interacted with Peter, I have seen and read many of his comments and contributions to Wikipedia. I vote understanding that there was an incident some time ago (although I don't know the details). All that I've read of Peter's contribution show that he is mature, thoughtful, civil, intelligent, and that he thinks things through before providing input. I think Wikipedia needs this type of admin. If there was a mistake made in the past, then I've seen nothing to indicate that he hasn't learned from it, and see no reason to believe that the same mistake would happen again. Humans make mistakes, they should be forgiven. I'd ask that you "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". Wikipedia is in dire need of common sense, level headed thinking, and objective reasoning. Peter exhibits these qualities, and I believe this should be a "snowball support" issue. Thank you for your time. Ched (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

     OK, after looking back at the issue a bit, I'll admit, letting someone else use his account was a poor way to WP:AGF, but really, the larger transgression seemed to be on the other editor. So, I have no reason to change my vote. Ched (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

164. Seems fine. Poor judgment, but had engough sense to step down instead of digging in over it. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
165. Support One mistake, but otherwise a great asset to the project.--Wiggles_oinks^waddles 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
166. Strong Support It takes a big person to acknowledge a wrongdoing they have committed and then step down voluntarily. I would think that if it were to ever happen again, he not be up for another RFA for a decent while. I personally have gone through and looked over all of the edits made, something I don't ever do unless it is definitely needed, and from what I can tell, not only is this editor extremely beneficial to the project, they have demonstrated exceptional poise and grace.. CHEERS!--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
167. Support qp10qp (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
168. Support - good service and good experience. Wandering Courier (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
169. Support Knows how to learn. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
170. Support: It would be little short of dementia to deny the project the full use of Peter's demonstrated talent, energy and experience because of one screwup. Mind you, I urge every single editor commenting on this who has never made a single mistake or lapse in judgment in his or her entire life to oppose; they, at least, would have grounds to hold such a POV.  RGTraynor  13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
171. Support - Everyone makes mistakes. What is important is that you learn from it. --Chenzw  Talk  13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
172. Strong support - of course :) - Alison ^❤ 15:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
173. Support - Everyone falls down. What mattes is how high you bounce. He's learned his lesson, and will be a better admin because of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
174. Strong Support – I have known him for a while and full support. TheAE talk/sign 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
175. Support Stupidity happens. I'm not even sure that the desysoping was the way to go in the first place. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
176. Samir 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
177. Support. Need more admins. Haukur (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
178. Secret ^account 13:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
179. Support - I'm going with the cabal on this one. There are a number of the editors and admins that I respect who support you and that speaks volumes. Everyone makes mistakes now and again (myself especially). Without personally knowing him, I think Pete's learned from his mistake and would continue to positively contribute to WP. Good luck. —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
180. Can I have your password? ≈ MindstormsKid^{[citation needed]} 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

     I can haz password nao plz? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

181. Yep! Crystal whacker (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
182. I always had thought you were a good administrator before the incident which resulted in your desysoping. What happened was series but I recognise you are human, so I am happy to move on now. Your attitude after the incident clearly shows you have learnt a lesson, you almost could not have handled it better, which helps show you have key skills of an administrator. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
183. Support per NuclearWarfare. Ben MacDui 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
184. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
185. Support. Pedro asked above What we now need to know is if we can trust him once more?" I know a good way of finding out. Also, reading many opposes to various RfA's you get the shock-horror impression it would be the end of the world if a new admin transgressed. Of course it wouldn't, it would simply be the end of his/her use of tools. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
186. Hello, I'm Hansel, and I need some help with this old lady. She tried to put me in her oven...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an editor that won't be baked. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC) actually ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~
187. Support - Honestly, my initial inclination for this re-sysop was neutral-to-negative. Upon reflection, I am convinced by the support of editors above; I've read most comments and agree it's an appropriate move. I supported the first time, so I do know Peter's work already. I am not relying on anyone else's evaluation, but rather the commentary of why this is appropriate. The incident concerned me greatly - hence my delay here - but I can see only good things from Peter since.  Frank  |  talk  03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
188. Per nominators and Synergy. Keegan^talk 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
189. Support as I believe in second chances when the person has proved worthy of it. Cenarium (Talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
190. Support - Great wikipedian. Great admin. One mistake (which no one can reasonably claim will ever happen again). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
191. Support. PeterSymonds has learned from his mistake. The past is the past, and as long as history doesn't repeat itself, I'm sure he will be a great asset. DiverseMentality 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
192. Support duh good user and there is no way that i could not not support :). He has already proved himself has made a mistake, but really everyone has the odd slip up ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
193. Support -- he's an excellent writer and was an excellent administrator, and an asset to the project. Coemgenus 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
194. Support - Very good candidate and definitely knows his way around the tools. The answers to his questions denote his understanding of the policies required and he will be a great administrator. Cheers, Razorflame 20:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
195. Strong support -Because no one else would be number 195.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
196. Support - I'll settle for support number 196. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
197. Support All, right. He's a great person, and if anything, he's learned from whatever he's done in the past that wasn't very smart. I'm willing to believe that he deserves a second try at the tools, especially since it looks like this is going through. Icy // ♫ 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very regretful oppose that would otherwise be strong support. I've seen this guy around and he's a great editor and administrator and will eventually be a great insert-even-more-trusted-role person, except.... As to the question of trust: Yes, I trust him. Yes, by itself making him an admin again would be a very big net positive for the project. But it's only been about 5 months. We make new people wait longer than that before applying for their initial adminship. Re-admining him now sets a bad precedent. I'm surprised ARBCOM didn't recommend he wait a certain period of time before re-applying, but I guess they wanted to leave that to the community. As much as I'd love to co-nom, I can't even support him at this early date, and I can't even be neutral. I'm sorry. If you come back after Labor Day even with no edits at all I'll nominate you myself. Of course, my hope is that you won't disappear and that you'll continue your fine editing until then. At 5 months, I must oppose. At 9 months I might be neutral. At a year this would be history. After 1.5-2 years I wouldn't hold this against you if you asked for a position requiring even more trust. Do you see ARBCOM in your future? *hint* I guess you could call this the opposite of a backhanded compliment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I think there's a consensus by the supporters that this is a very rare exception. I can see why you would consider a bad precedent, but we support and oppose on a case-by-case basis. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Also, I found it interesting how you said, "If you come back after Labor Day even with no edits at all I'll nominate you myself." This implies that you think Peter is ready as is, but needs to wait 9 more months anyway. Or at least that is how it seems to me; please correct me if I'm wrong. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   You read it correctly. He was ready as soon as he made his sincere apology way back when. The oppose is a procedural issue. If you read the rest, there will come a time in the 6-9 month range that I'll switch from oppose to neutral, and if you read between the lines, sometime in the 9-12 month range I'll shift to support, simply because time has passed and it no longer sets a precedent. There's precedent from other editors at RFA that after a specific period of time, for many editors 365 days, "all is forgiven." This is why I said I'd be willing to nominate him in September. This oppose is entirely procedural, which is why it's so regretted. The best thing that could happen to this RFA is that 1) he gets the bit and 2) nobody in a similar situation in the future notices that someone got handed the bit so soon after losing it after sharing an account. Well, actually, the best thing would be if no admin ever shared an account again. I wish this RFA had been delayed a few months, but that wasn't my call. Besides, Peter is a great editor, even if he had waited Wikipedia would still benefit from his talents. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   A "a procedural issue"? David, you've been around long enough to know that candidates are judged individually and upon their own contributions. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Alright guys, he's entitled to his vote and I do see where he's coming from. Let's just leave it at that. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Any time someone wants to use the rationale that we should treat one candidate the same as we treat everyone, in any particular respect, I support at least having that discussion. It's particularly classy that David waited until his protest vote didn't have a chance of derailing the candidacy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what I would've done if it was in the crat-discretion range early on and still there on day 6. I probably would've waited and read every comment before deciding to speak up at the RFA, quietly encourage the nominee to withdraw until later, or stay silent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Juliancolton: In theory, maybe, but in practice we evaluate people against a set of standards - a set of standards created by every previous RFA we've encountered as well as the rest of our wiki-life and off-wiki-life experiences. Part of my standards include some base-line elements such as this one. Your standards may differ. This difference is one of the reasons this is a public process and not a "send an email to the crat email list and see if any of them will sysop you" process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Precedent? What precedent? You surely don't mean five months after the next time an admin like Peter makes this mistake. But if so, then I see no problem with this precedent. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm sorry, great guy as you are I could not trust you with the tools again. Giggy (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I can understand the August incident. However, don't you think Peter learned from the incident? I believe Ryan Postlethwaite explains this quite good. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'd be incredibly concerned if he hadn't learned anything form the incident. That isn't my point. Giggy (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   What is your point then? Majorly talk 14:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   That at this stage I just can't trust him with the tools yet. I'm sure Peter will understand even if a great deal of people have made it clear below that they don't. Giggy (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   That if a person ever makes a mistake, they are worthless as an admin? --David Shankbone 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Could you trust him with the tools after 1 year? After 5? After 10? Could you trust him if he was elected to the equivalent of ARBCOM on two major non-English Wikipedias? Could you trust him with the tools if he married your sister and raised your nieces and nephews and did a bang-up good job of it? How about if he were elected President of the United States and after retirement was generally regarded as the best President since the Civil War? If the answer is "no, never," I'll understand. But I just want to make sure you are clear in your own mind what, if anything, it would take to regain this trust. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I don't want to set an arbitrary time limit now, but I promise you that if PeterSymonds ever becomes president of the USA I'll eat my proverbial hat. Giggy (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Not to derail your point... but isn't Peter British? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Heh, indeed he is. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   My goodness can people be persistent. It's obvious that Giggy simply doesn't trust the candidate's judgment due to the fiasco involving his account. Does he really need to expound on the point further? It's not like this is a make or break oppose - the RfA is certainly going to pass with flying colors. I'm also going to request that Majorly just shuts up regarding opposes altogether. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   hmm yes how dare majorly question oppose rationales what a terrible thing (seriously: Occasionally Majorly has been over-the-top, but mostly I don't see the problem; here, he just asked "what is your point then?". Not really bad, in my view) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   How unforgiving RFA is...a pity.--Patton^t/c 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, it truly is the worst part of Wikipedia, and if I were you I'd avoid it like the plague because it's so rotten and terrible. Giggy (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   hmm yes how dare somebody oppose because they believe somebody can't really be trusted after x action Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Caden S (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Is there a reason why ? -- Tinu Cherian - 10:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   According to RfA policy, opposes may be ignored or striked out if no reason is provided. So, I'm asking Tinucherian to provide a reason why he/she is opposing. HTH, LucerneWorker^{user • talk • contribs} 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Um, you mean CadenS. Tinucherian was querying the oppose. :) Orderinchaos 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   ""According to RfA policy, opposes may be ignored or striked out if no reason is provided.". What a fascinating assertion. Would you please point me to the text that butresses your statement? Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   I kindly suggest that the discussion of this vote ends. No bureaucrat will take note of this vote, I assure you. --Deskana (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   ^^ Looks like that's sufficient text for you. Majorly talk 12:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Oops, I referred to the wrong user. Well I did really ask CadenS. LucerneWorker^{user • talk • contribs} 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I have no doubt that Peter is a quality editor who makes a lot of good contriubtions to the encyclopedia. I also have no doubt that he learned his lesson and will never repeat this mistake again. However, the very fact that he would allow a non-admin user to repeatedly use his account and never saw anything wrong with that until it was explained to him makes me question his judgement in general. I'm not ready yet to say that I think it unlikely he'll make a different large and stupid mistake - that type of growth in quality of judgement (judgement quality?) comes with time, experience, and greater maturity. Four months was likely not enough time to get there. Karanacs (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Regreful Oppose per Giggy. I don't doubt that Peter has learned from his mistake, but I just can't support anyone at RfA after that kind of mistake. JPG-GR (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   So... our official stance is that mistakes cannot be forgiven? One screw-up and you're done forever? Man, that kinda sucks. No wonder we're losing sysops at such a prodigious rate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Not losing admins fast enough IMO, but I digress. I agree with you EVula, everyone ought to be allowed to make a mistake or two. This was a pretty big mistake, admittedly, but hardly a hanging offence. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   And, for what it's worth, I don't pretend that it was a minor mistake. But what I consider more important than the size of the mistake is the person's response to the mistake; if Peter had denied wrongdoing and become a pest, rather than admit his fault and continue making positive contributions to the project, I suspect that I and a hundred other people would have !voted very, very differently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Hey, I'm agreeing with you! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not going to let something as trivial as "facts" stand in the way of me making a declaration! (also, that wasn't actually directed at you, more just an addendum to my statement prompted by your reply) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose - too soon in my opinion. This is obviously going to pass at this point, but I really don't think four months is long enough for such an error in judgment. --B (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   My reply to the neutral below sort of addresses this, and was written as you placed your comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Four months ago, he turned the keys to the kingdom over to a user who is now indefblocked. My "arbitrary timeframe" would be some lengthy timeframe after sufficient maturity to not make such a mistake has been demonstrated. If someone I worked with gave their key and alarm code to someone off the street, they would be fired and somehow I don't think they would be rehired after four months. If they were an immature kid when it happened, maybe, years down the line, they might conceivably be considered, but barring that kind of situation ... no way. --B (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Thanks for your time in replying. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose Under no circumstances should anyone who did what he did be allowed near the tools ever again. Please, nobody bother to ask me to change my opinion. I don't believe that "learning from this incident" is sufficient. His actions show a failure of judgment that is fatal to my trust. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   WP:FORGIVE? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   It was about time for someone to drop that link. Needs to be used more often around this neck of the woods. Synergy 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree with both of you, because I suspect you haven't recently read the essay you linked to. I am not slinging mud, nor is this a talk page discussion. This isn't a case where tempers are hot. There is no dispute that needs to be cooled down. I've never interacted with PeterSymonds, so it's also not a case of me being annoyed at a previous action. I simply consider his actions, as documented in the links given, to be a sign that he isn't of the temperament to be given the tools. WP:FORGIVE basically says, "Stop arguing and/or fighting and things will get better." I agree with this entirely. However, there's no argument here. I made a principled statement based on my understanding of human nature, and that's all. Others may disagree; I not only respect their beliefs, I also understand where they're coming from. I just think they're wrong, and reasonable people can disagree. However, simply asking me to forgive a terrible lapse of judgment on PeterSymonds' part shows that you don't understand my problem, so I'll restate it: His actions have shown what I consider to be a serious failure of common sense and logic, and that's not something that a short period of time will correct. I've seen things like this too often in my professional life: someone screws up horribly, is forgiven quickly, and does it again. No, thank you. (I know that my statement here may sound rather strident. I apologize for that, and it's not meant that way. I just need to be very precise in my wording so that I'm not understood; I can be dangerously lax in my wording if I speak informally.) Tl;dr version: I'm sure PeterSymonds is a nice person. I just believe that his previous actions were so egregious that he shouldn't be given the tools again, and you can't forgive someone of a lack of qualifications for a job. You just apologize to them and don't give them the job. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I somewhat agree. It was a staggeringly bad error of judgement. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I also don't see the relevance: WP:FORGIVE is about walking away from disputes, not about loss of trust, which is a subjective judgment. Whether or when trust is regained is likewise a subjective matter. Geometry guy 14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose. A remarkably fine contributor, and yes, the candidate now is clued in on this particular incident, but right now I'm not convinced there won't come other crises of clue in the future. I'm sorry. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

   Since everyone else is coming to oppose commenters and saying they should change their minds, I'm going to come to this one and say that Aunt Entropy has said everything I am thinking in a single sentence. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   As far as I can tell, nobody has asked anybody to change their minds. People often seem to forget that RfA is a discussion, and editors are allowed to reply to other users. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Please explain, then, how a bald statement of "WP:FORGIVE" is anything other than a request for me to change my mind. Had you made any kind of argument in your statement, I could see how you were attempting to discuss the issue. As it was, you weren't discussing at all, in my view. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Guys, please leave it there. I respect your opinion as equally as I wish this not to degenerate into an argument. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Evidently PeterSymonds is a fine editor, widely respected and well-liked, and a dedicated and helpful Wikipedian. However, as Malleus puts it just above, this was a staggeringly bad error of judgment, and I'm surprised to see so many rushing so soon to endorse re-adminship. I agree that Peter has done more than enough to apologise, recognise his error and make amends. He has clearly been forgiven by the community. However, I find it very hard to support someone who can even conceive that letting someone else use their admin tools is anywhere near the ballpark of "okay". Peter himself can't explain it: "I was asked several times not to change it [my password], 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." This does not inspire confidence: I could possibly understand if it was a case of "I meant change my password, but nothing bad was happening and I didn't get round to it." Forgiven, yes, but re-tooled? In agreement with Karanacs and others here, I believe this is too soon. Geometry guy 14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Symbolic Oppose. This nom will pass with flying colors, and it's even true that the odds are reasonably high that the editor will never again repeat an error of this severity... The editor has made several protestations of remorse. But "Sorry is as sorry does." My question #8 is labeled Optional, and the wording is pointed and disapproving. However, I'm sitting here trying to imagine a more grievous error than this editor's, and the only things that come to mind are RL threats and harassment. If the editor in fact truly valued the community; if he were truly sorry for the damage (or potential damage) that his actions caused to the community, then no good-faith questions by the community—however uncomfortable or repetitive—would be left unanswered. I know if I had done something so severe, I would feel that every one who asks a question deserves an answer. Instead, the question has sat unanswered for 36 hours. The lack of response strikes me as the actions of someone who is showing the minimum amount of repentance necessary to re-acquire the mop. I'm afraid must wonder if the question would remain unanswered if the vote tally were other than a landslide of Support. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Re: "I'm sitting here trying to imagine a more grievous error": You forgot the obvious: Making the same mistake twice. That's not going to happen in this case, but if it did, it would be more than 2x as grievous as doing it once. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed that almost surely isn't going to happen, but the concern as I see it, and as Aunt Entropy succinctly put it, is "other crises of clue in the future". Geometry guy 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose – regretfully per Geometry guy and Aunt Entropy. Whilst I myself may not be in a position to oppose, as some incorrectly believe below, I believe that allowing someone to use your account is terrible judgement. I appreciate he was a good administrator before this incident, however that does not mitigate my concerns. Caulde 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Errors in judgement about policy are easily forgivable, an occasional lapse from civility can be overlooked, but to knowingly allow other persons to use your admin account is a gross abuse of the trust placed in you by the community. I have no reason to doubt that the candidate's remorse for his actions and assurances that this would not happen again are genuine and indeed, I believe that to be the case. However, actions have consequences. In some way, rather than reflecting a lack of trust in this candidate, this oppose is intended to demonstrate to all administrators and candidates that such actions will not be tolerated and apologies, remorse and some time on the sidelines will not serve to repair all damage. Sorry, Mattinbgn\^talk 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Sorry That was one baaad move, man. It's not the same as yourself having a Wiki-Universe fracture moment over the idiocy and grief and pointless headbanging-the-desk over fools and so went fragmentarily IP rogue yourself, for eg. You let someone take over. You just sat there and let them. Not yet, at least. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    If not yet, when? A year? 10 years? If you don't trust him, that's fine, but opposing someone solely because not enough time has passed when something happened 6 months ago is a punishment. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

14. Sorry What on earth were you thinking? It's way too soon for this. After such a huge mistake, I need to be more convinced.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

    By what? This RfA is very likely to pass, but it'd still be helpful to the candidate if you were more specific with your feedback. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

    If all you need to be more convinced is time then I reject yours as a weak vote. Peter messed up and showed genuine remorse and more time can't change that. If there's something else in particular then please let us know what that might be. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

15. Support as long as he lets me use his admin account, no seriously oppose I have rarely seen a stronger reason to oppose an RfA than such blatant abuse of process. King of the North East 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    That snide remark was not only seriously rude, but also massively out of order. — neuro^(talk) 18:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    Were you seriously expecting anything better Neurolysis? Majorly talk 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    What I expect is for people to not be hateful and malicious, and to show some common decency by not being completely and utterly insolant. — neuro^(talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    I apologise for any offence taken by others on behalf of the nominee, but have to ask how it is any different to support number 180? My point about the blatant abuse of process still stands. King of the North East 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    What I said was misjudged, he is clearly a popular editor judging by the number of supports and the number of people questioning the opposers, I should have expected such a reaction. I intended it to be lighthearted (as support 180 obviously did) since my opinion has little chance of changing the outcome of this debate given the overwhelming support. I am dissapointed that I have now been labeled "snide", "rude", "out of order", "hateful", "malicious" and "insolent" for one misjudged late night edit when perhaps unfunny would have done. I'm not sure that I feel welcome to contribute at RfA after such a charector assasination. King of the North East 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    I for one took no offence, and saw the joke. While I would say it certainly is and was no laughing matter, I didn't see it as malicious or vindictive. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

    That is a very good comment, and I think that attitude illustrates why Peter has gained such a lot of support. Geometry guy 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

16. I have no doubt that Peter is a good editor, and I appreciate the work he has done. However, there was unfortunately a gross lapse of judgment. Over time, a long pattern of good judgment can be demonstrated; I don't think that five months is enough time. – wodup – 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, I think my main concerns have been assuaged, though on balance I cannot bring myself to actively support this nomination which looks likely to pass anyway. I'm only commenting here as I asked a question, otherwise I would probably not comment at all. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral – excellent from what I remember of him; always keeping his word, making respectable contributions across the namespaces, however I have doubts as to whether his judgement would be consistent with what Wikipedia expects of an administrator, given that incident. Caulde 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   You had your own, not too disimilar incident Caulde, shortly after you were elevated to the ranks of the untouchables. Would you vote for yourself in your own RfA? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   With regards to your question, I haven't the foggiest to what you are asking. Could you explain further? Caulde 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   It's the incident where you were "hacked". Majorly talk 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I said with regards to your question. Caulde 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I thought my question was clear enough, but I'll try again. Suppose that after your "hacking incident" you'd chosen to resign your adminship, on the basis that many did not accept that you were being entirely honest about events. Now you present yourself at RfA. Would you vote for yourself? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Why is that relevant to this RfA? Caulde 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Is that not obvious? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   No, otherwise I wouldn't be asking would I? Caulde 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Could I refer the honourable members to the first line of my nomination, in particular the sans drama comment? Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I'll leave it to others to decide whether Caulde's position is entirely consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry Pedro, I appreciate your sentiment however, I am not sure whether Malleus is a position to make noted concerns about consistency. Caulde 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   If this was a close enough RfA, and this was an oppose, I am sure that a Crat would consider "hypocrisy" as a possible rationale for ignoring the whole thing. I believe that is what Malleus is getting at. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   It is. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2. I cannot oppose due to the obvious asset you bring as an admin, but I cannot fully support due to your past actions and the time between them and this RfA. Had you waited another 3-4 months I would have easily supported, but for now I cannot. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   That's an insightful comment Mastrchf91, and one alluded to by davidwr in oppose. I have to admit I was pushing Peter a while back to run again, but we agreed (I think I recommended but can't be sure) that it was best to wait until the new year to get a few months "under the belt" as it were. However this in a wider context now seems at odds with the purpose of adminship - to help the project further with the aid of additional tools. My thoughts are that if a given editor is likely to start helping the project further then we are doing a dis-service to oursleves by putting some arbitary time frame on them gaining (or here re-gaining) the bit if they are already clearly capable. Just my musings, and again thank you for your input. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with you almost 100%, and for the reasons you and I have both listed is why I couldn't oppose Peter. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I believe that Peter has learned his lesson, and I'm teetering on weak support. My rationality on my neutral stance is that when Peter first lost his admin status, he stated that he would never seek to regain his admin status. My belief is that words do matter and that Peter should live up to his earlier claim. Anyway, it seems Peter will be successful in his RFA and I wish him the best. Minfo (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral, leaning towards Support. I remember this user's name because recently I asked a question on WP:Help about the various types of blocks within Wikipedia. In my question I requested one-sentence explanations for each of four types of blocks. The first respondent simply gave me two links to WP policy pages, which was not what I had asked for. Peter then overwrote that reply with his own, which very neatly answered each of my four questions. I would express Support based on this experience plus AGF, but the password issue pushes me back to halfway between Support and Neutral.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral Made nothing to prevent the incident happening again, but he has been a value editor here, so I will plop myself here. (This vote is up for grabs) Leujohn ^(talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   The wording of your comment suggests you might want a reply, but I don't understand it fully. What do you mean by "made nothing to prevent the incident happening again"? The fact that it won't happen again has been discussed before on my talk page, but I may not be understanding you correctly. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2009 (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.