Wikipedia:Requests for oversightership/Fehufanga

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

Fehufanga[change source]

Fehufanga (talk · contribs · count)
RfO of Fehufanga
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted blocks · protects · deletes · moves · rights
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

Hello everyone,

I'm here today to nominate Fehufanga for oversightership. At the last request for oversightership (linked), there were quite a few comments pointing out that we should still have more oversighters, as Enfcer is the only oversighter we have voted in since 2011, and we have still haven't filled in that gap, and recently, there has been some discussion on IRC about how we should probably get another oversighter.

From a timezone perspective, Fehufanga is online when many other admins are not. He is one of our more active admins and is also very easy to contact in Discord, IRC and through email – which is perfect for the OS role. All of this I believe would make him a great choice for our next oversighter.

Thank you for your time, and best of luck to Fehufanga! --Ferien (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept the nomination. Thank you Ferien.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. I seem to be the most active oversighter at the moment. And when requests come in, that are time-critical, having to alert a steward because the oversighter is in Europe, and currently asleep, gives a bad impression. So I would definitely appreciate help.--Eptalon (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is very responsible and the help from this time zone is needed. Absolutely, support. --IWI (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't see why no one would want to support this nomination. Fehufanga is one of the best admins here, and they totally deserve this feat. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There are four current oversighters. Of the ones other than Eptalon, one hasn't edited in over a month, and the other two haven't edited in over 2 months. Eptalon should definitely have help, and Fehufanga is trustworthy. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Even without the fact that we plainly need more oversight coverage, Fehufanga is a great admin and more than qualified for the role. Definitely support! --DovahFRD (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No reason not to support. Has the support of other OS. Can't hurt. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sure. Has the support of a current OS, why not? Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yeah! I mean, all I see in recent changes these days is Fehufanga doing cleanup. It only makes sense. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm mostly satisfied with the candidate's answer to my question below. Fehufanga has my support --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support--BRP ever 23:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Admin does a good job, we need oversighters anyway.--Derpdart56 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support An active oversighter agrees to this nomination. How dare we not? Angerxiety+ 15:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Has shown understanding of the complexities of admin tasks, and would be an active member of the team. Peterdownunder (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom and others. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: OK with me! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--Saroj Uprety (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support -- EN-Jungwon 15:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support LGTM Operator873 connect 22:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as nominator. --Ferien (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support LGTM. Drummingman (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Simply too many respected support votes to worry too much here and i can't see point in prolonging this. -- DeirgeDel tac 02:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I suppose if people think another oversighter is needed, I have no problems. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Admin that does the job well, can't see the reason why I shouldn't support this nomination. Jolly1253 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support اربابی دوم (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Net positive. Illusion Flame (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This account was created on simple.wikipedia.org after the RFO started, so it's not eligible to vote. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

Comments[change source]

  • Using a hash tag ('#') instead of an asterisk generates a number; this likely makes counting easier.--Eptalon (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. That is generally what we do at RfAs, and all other user right requests where people make votes. However, sometimes someone uses a bullet point and everyone else follows on. It doesn't really matter too much in RfAs and RfBs but for RfOs and RfCUs, it is definitely something we should follow. --Ferien (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a bit of a difficult question to answer, because it may be broad. I will try my best to explain it. Could you, in your own words, explain what the oversight right is? (Not the criterion for it, or the process, but just what [Oversight] is in a nutshell). Thank you! --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @つがる The Oversight userright allows a user to hide a change from regular users and administrators. This is similar to revdel, however, only other oversighters can see an oversighted change. I hope that answers your question. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Fehufanga. My vote will be up shortly. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are in a tough spot here. The user has overwhelming support, however the request is short of the 25 support votes that I believe are required by the foundation. Shall we leave this open to try and gather more support? Do we have the activity to get to 25? --Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gordonrox24: I think it may be worth it to leave it open for another week at most. We may simply not have enough activity to get the required support for a new oversighter or checkuser at the moment, if there's not 25 by next Monday. Justarandomamerican (Discuss!) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, let's leave it open. Maybe remind people on Simple talk that it's still open, even though we have the banner as well. It might be hard to get 25 votes here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW the watchlist banner expired yesterday. If the banner wants to be put up again, the expiry date on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages needs to be changed. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have extended the date on that banner up until 19 April. --Ferien (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Bureaucrat note: OS/CU type requests do not have a set time we have to close them in. Historically most were closed in 1 week, mine lasted almost 2 weeks. Leaving this open a little longer will not hurt anything, and may give some of our not as active editors a chance to vote. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of past requests, both Peterdownunder and Djsasso's requests lasted just under a month, so this hasn't really lasted that long yet. It hasn't been as active as the RfCUs we had in 2020 (that both managed to get the 25+ in a week) and your RfO, but there's still a chance for more participation so it is worth keeping open. --Ferien (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree, and was just affirming the statements above that their seems to be support just not enough votes yet, that leaving it open for more time is no issue. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. Leaving discussions open overlong simply invites problems and possible mental stress for the candidate. That's probably minimal for a discussion going one way like this. Having been personally physically threatened in a discussion which occurred on another Wiki where the discussion was simply left open too long I feel pretty strongly about this. And while not relevant here I feel pretty aggrieved by a UTRS case that's being left open on the English Wikipedia currently. 2 weeks max. Simples. Although can I confirm there was due notification of this vote ... and April 1st was the first time I've happened to notice it albeit I may not have hit my watchlist until today. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 02:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeirgeDel: We need at least 25 support votes to close as successful. --IWI (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment:: Thanks for thank simples info - that does affect my thinking. At least I've already voted so have help marginally. Hopefully others might notice that and vote. -- DeirgeDel tac 18:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And for what it's worth, DeirgeDel, the 25 support vote requirement applies to all requests for oversightership and checkusership on all projects. --Ferien (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien:: With the ongoing stress of that stalled UTRS case still open that really risked me withdrawing my vote for your nominee. But I have chosen not to be frammy and do so out of spite. It also wouldn't be fair on the candidate. Overall though that you for the information and perhaps it should have placed in boilerplating at the top of the page. As 25 have now been reached hopefully there is a possibility of closing this within 48 hours - if not the rules of engagement ought probably be changed to make that close happen soon - Regards -- (formerly Djm-leighpark) 14:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) DeirgeDel tac 14:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have 25 votes! Derpdart56 (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoooo!!! :-D Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversightership/Fehufanga&oldid=8900136"