Meta:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds

PeterSymonds

• PeterSymonds (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hi all! I'm here to nominate PeterSymonds for adminship here on Meta. He's an experienced sysop on enwiki, simplewiki and commons as well as an OTRS-agent. He's currently a temporary admin here due to the Fundraiser, but I think we'd benefit from having him as a regular admin to help out on various areas. I hope you share my thoughts. Good luck! -Barras 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is nice, thank you. I'm watching Meta quite closely at the moment so I'll help out where I can. PeterSymonds 18:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Support - of course, as nom... -Barras 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Maximillion Pegasus 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I've had nothing but positive interactions with PeterSymonds, and I have no doubt that he would make good use of the tools. Ajraddatz 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support & thanks for helping. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. I didn't understand why he applied for temp in the first place when he could just get the permanent tools just the same. I've have a very positive impression of PS both here and on enwiki. Jafeluv 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sure. --Erwin 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support sure , highly trusted Mardetanha ^talk 20:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• of course, not only as one of the main operative pillars of the fundraiser 10/11 --Jan eissfeldt 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Wutsje 22:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Strongly oppose - Vapmachado 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  any reasons ? or just opposing without any rationality Mardetanha ^talk 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  User appears to have a history of trolling, both from his block log here, on pt.wikipedia, on br.wikimedia and on pt.wikimedia. Ajraddatz 00:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Having oppose vote from Trolls just makes me more sure about his capability & competency Mardetanha ^talk 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  I suggest to the closing bureaucrat completly ignore this !vote as void. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 08:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support --M/ 00:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support --- @lestaty ^discuţie 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. Grunny (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, certainly James (T C) 01:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- DQ (t) (e) 01:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I had always assumed he was one frankly. fr33kman 06:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)