Meta:Requests for adminship/Peteforsyth

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Peteforsyth

Ending 7 October 2011 06:04 UTC

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

Greetings! I have been increasing my activity on Meta lately, and would like to be able to pitch in with admin duties on occasion. I am also an admin on what I consider the closely-related Outreach wiki. I've been an admin on English Wikipedia for over two years; though I am much more of a content contributor than an administrative type. As you can see from my global edit chart, I'm by far most active on en-wp, but have also made over 1000 edits to Wikisource, a fair amount of contribution to Commons, and a handful of edits to other projects, some in other languages.

I should be clear: I do not anticipate becoming a highly active administrator here. However, I do find myself more interested in contributing to Meta, and feel the tools could be useful on occasion. If granted the tools, I would use them much the same way I have on en-wp: on rare occasions, when the need is clear, or when I have the opportunity to get input from more experienced admins. It's also occasionally useful to see a deleted page and so forth. -Pete F 06:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support why not? fr33kman 07:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 13:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - of course. My experiences with Pete have been very positive. --Philippe 13:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - A pretty clear request, everything seems fine. :) ^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 13:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support yep. Grunny (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support. Mathonius 14:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Guido den Broeder 16:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trijnstel 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Seems redundant because didn't Pete already have permissions for everything already? Add: Can we also give admin rights to his (WMF) name also so that we don't need to worry with yet another silly vote? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying the User:Pete Forsyth (WMF) account is not active, as I am no longer working for the Foundation. As far as I'm concerned the only reason for its continued existence is for preserving edit histories. It redirects to my personal user profile; if it is deemed helpful, I can elaborate there on my relationship to the Foundation. -Pete F 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that seems lame. I guess that is the WMF's loss to not have you around there, but at least you will devote some of your talent here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but really it's not lame at all -- I enjoy working with WMF people when the opportunity arises, and I enjoy being independent too. Here's Frank's announcement of the end of my contract. -Pete F 00:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support, why not? Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Qualified. Courcelles 19:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Per everyone! SarahStierch 20:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support FalconL ^?! 16:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely, a great guy and a great Wikipedian. Hope to see you around Meta more, Pete. Theo10011 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
• sure --Jan eissfeldt 02:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 18:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Per all above. –BruTe ^talk 09:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --N KOzi^Talk 09:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Sure, of course. ←fetchcomms 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --თოგო ^(D) 10:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• support, of course. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Lucas Nunes 13:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Tiptoety ^talk 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Granted per local consensus. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 05:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)