Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/Fr33kman

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

Fr33kman

Fr33kman (talk · contribs)

Earliest end date: 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Fr33kman for Oversighter. While we have a few Oversighters (and I know that in general most of you are available via email) I feel that we have a lack of Oversighters who are available for an emergency (especially on IRC) and if at all possible I would prefer oversights to be done by trusted local users rather then Stewards. Because of that I thought it would be beneficial to have another trusted user who is always on IRC and able to respond when something happens. Fr33kman is an active Checkuser (and therefore already identified to the WMF) and my experiences with him under that role has proven to me that he can be trusted with the private access. I feel giving him the additional flag can only benefit the community. James (T C) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept the nomination. fr33kman 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom James (T C) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Definitely. Lauryn^☆ 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Support He is a very active CU and has the trust of the community to handle it. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
5. per nom.--  † CR₉₀  06:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - Nifky^{^} 06:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Has my full trust. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Is there anybody who could do otherwise? One of the kindest and quickest Wikipedians I've met... Classical Esther 10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Strong support No shit :) —§ stay (sic)! 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Yes please.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 11:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
11. I'm not very active at the moment and don't use IRC, so another oversighter is what we need. Majorly talk 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
12. As Majorly stated. He is currently not really around, EVula is fairly inactive and Djsasso not that active as well. Eptalon is always busy. Most recent oversights (or better suppressions) are done by Peterdownunder or me. Some help would be good. Barras ^talk 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

    I am fully active, the proper procedure for OS requests is to email the OS list. This almost never happens. You want more activity then start following procedure and not relying heavily on IRC. I am at my computer about 12 hours a day...an email gets sent out I would be on it in seconds. And email unlike IRC requests leaves a paper trail. IRC should only be used after the email option is exhausted. -DJSasso (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

13. Trusted, thoughtful and active user. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
15. --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Why not? Megan|^talk_changes 03:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Strong support Unlike his name, he's not freaky at all. He's a wonderful person if you get to know him, and he also helped me alot in sticky situations like about a certain impertinent mouse. :) Best wishes! Belle (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Great editor, can be trusted with the tools. Quantum4 ^{Send me a message} 16:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Airplaneman ^talk 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Support: fr33kman is a great user, he deserves anything. --Diego (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Support - Fr33kman is the ideal OSer. Definite interest and knowledge in the field. Strong support. EhJJ^TALK 23:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Support will not abuse the tool. RP459 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Support Kansan (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Support Clearly trustworthy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Support --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
26. Trustworthy. NW (Talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
27. I Trust him. Yottie ^=talk= 16:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
28. The candidate meets suitability criteria for me. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't see the need for more oversight at the moment, though Fr33kman would do a great job. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose. I have no objection that he is unsuitable for having oversighter rights, but it appears there are enough oversighters here and oversight is not something completely urgent since there's several oversighters already. O.320939697.O 18:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose Strong oppose Per Peterdownunder. Also has not impressed me of late. Sorry Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

   Fine, but I must point out that your oppose is based on my not supporting you in your pointless arguments regarding Lincoln ie: Talk:Lincoln. You have decided to bring your old fight from enwiki to simplewiki, and that's sad, it reflects upon you as a person! You lost there and you are afraid you will lose here also! I didn't offer an opinion of your arguments, in fact I just protected the page due to your reverts and your personal attacks. I was in communication with multiple admins and all of us were in agreement that you were in the wrong! You and I spoke on IRC and you claimed that I had stated that the discussion was ended; however you accepted (on IRC) [and, yes, I do have the logs] that I did not say that and you then said you did not have a grudge against me. This vote proves you are not as honest as you would like the entire WMF community to believe. You state that I have "not impressed you lately", well you have not impressed me ever! Frankly, you are lucky you were not simply blocked for disruption of the project! And I'm not the only admin to think this! fr33kman 07:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   What the heck does Lincoln have to do with anything? You're bringing in a matter which belongs at AN, not here. Honestly, making long, deriding monologues about people who oppose your is just a waste of time, which is why I strengthening my opposition. There's a difference between having a grudge and thinking that somebody is worthy of oversightship. Also, you had proposed a two-week block on me; it would have been up before this discussion was over Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think perhaps we should look beyond Special:UserRights and decide how many oversighters are actually active. Much of the day we're left without one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

   Well, Purplebackpack has went to oppose all the requests, including Ottava Rima's one, with a contradiction, he opposed him because he's banned on en.wiki, however he supported CR90?? ¿what? --Diego (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

   I voted oppose. So what? I trust CR90 more than Ottava. So what? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Would do a fine job, but I don't see the need for another, we already have what I would consider too many. This is what I feared would happen if we opened up another flag or users. As to JC's comments, there is always one availale. People need to email the list when they see soemthing. That is how OS works... so us oversighters can catch it when we aren't looking right at the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   Does one more hurt, since I'd "do a fine job"? :P fr33kman 11:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

   Wouldn't have opposed if I didnt think so. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

   One more "hurts"? How? fr33kman 13:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

we have hust 6 oversight here, do you think the we need more oversight? --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please see my rationale here. Barras ^talk 10:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • mea culpa :-)))))) --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Snake shouldn't say a swearword (see above: s--t). :) Just a thought! Belle (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately for people like me and you, Belle, Wikipedia is not censored.--  † CR₉₀  23:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • A clear misunderstanding of WP:NOTCENSORED there. Majorly talk 13:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, CR90! I'll try to be less critical about it!! You're so nice and kind! You, certainly, talk so kindly! ^,< Too bad about you being banned for six weeks, once (I read in Esther's talk page). I hope Fr33kman is supported, anyway! He's a very nice man, and I think he's a doctor, too, you know. Belle (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Extended for three days. Consensus exists presently, but we need 25 supports. Participate, folks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If there aren't 25 votes in three days, what happens? --Diego (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He fails. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm hoping we get there in three days, but if not, and consensus still exists, we can extend it for another four days to reach the two week mark some wikis have. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Moot point. We got 25 Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 25 supports now. :-) --Diego (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The goal is to get the votes in a one week period, prefferably 25 support votes or more during this time. However the rfx itself doesn't get closed when it reaches the 25 support vote, it's only limited by its time and number of people participating in the votes. If the request is unable to succeed in 25 support votes in that time, it will be extendeed for a few days to ensure a few more members will vote to achieve the 'passing' of the request. As I said in the second last sentence, there's no need to close it at exactly 25 votes during this extension or even have to comment about it within the oversight request, it be limited by its own time. When that time comes, a bureaucrat will be able to determine consensus for the result of the request. Nifky^{^} 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed, lets undertake the steps necessary to promote Fr33kman; Congrats... --Eptalon (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (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.