Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/EVula

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EVula[change source]

EVula (talk · contribs)

End date: June 9th, 2009

I realize that I've been a sysop here for just a couple of weeks (RfA), but I've been an active Oversighter on the English Wikipedia for a little over three months (election page). I've got ample administrative and oversight experience, and look forward to helping out around here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nom. It'd be kinda silly if I didn't accept. :)

Support[change source]

  1. I trust this candidate. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why the hell not –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Qualified and trusted. Synergy 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I fully support EVula's oversight request as I trust him here as well as on enWiki. I hope that now I have made it clear that it is not a neutral vote. Whether it is counted or not depends on the closing 'crat. Pmlinediter  Talk 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need oversighters, but I will not !vote against EVula. Pmlinediter  Talk 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a neutral vote (aka comment)? Please note that this vote may not be counted. Chenzw  Talk  13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[change source]

  1. Absolutely no need whatsoever for oversighters. We've had what, a dozen oversights done in five years? Also, while the candidate is fine as an admin here and other places, I'd prefer more time than just a few weeks for extra privs. Majorly talk 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose the fact that we're having elections so soon, with barely discussing if its even required. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Concur in entirety with Majorly here. That said, I heart EVula, I just think this is needless. :) — neuro(talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose no need to start this before discussion is held in full Soup Dish (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Majorly. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - this idea needs discussing with the full complement of active editors prior to just beginning a vote. (Nothing against the candidate) fr33kman talk 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Majorly and my views on IRC. Goblin 09:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The IRC part of this !vote is unfounded - I think the last time I saw EVula on IRC was in mid-2008.  GARDEN  09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I haven't been on IRC in a very, very long time. I really don't object to any of the opposes except this one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluegoblin7 is on IRC nearly every day, so I don't see an issue. Further, I always think oversighters should be IRC users. If they're needed urgently, it's nice to know that they idle to assist if urgent. But that's just my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean by my oppose is that I made my views on Oversight very clear on IRC, and many of the involved users were about when I made them. I'm not wasting time re-posting them, especially when, at the time I wrote the oppose, I had around 4 hours before I was due in a GCSE exam... Goblin 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And thus exactly why I have issue with IRC use for on-wiki topics...people who where not there such as myself have no way of seeing what you said. -Djsasso (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, too many oversighters currently ... and we don't have any.  GARDEN  09:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. sorry but not need --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

Per ST, the decision was to archive all these requests and remove them from the transclusion. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversightship/EVula&oldid=1574907"