Statement: I had no intention whatsoever in running for this, but having dealt with a particularly nasty streak of vandalism last night that required oversight, I felt it would be easier if I had the tool myself rather than having to ask a steward. I feel oversight would be very useful while working as a checkuser in several cases, such as last night. I'm on IRC most of the day so readily able to respond to requests as they come. It might not look like I'm the most active, but I check recent changes frequently, and as mentioned, I am in the IRC channel every day so I'm always in the background even if I'm not solidly editing.
A final note: there are several people running here today. As Eptalon says, please consider them before me, especially the ones who are just admins. Majorlytalk 14:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Support – Won't abuse the new tool, trustworthy. American Eagle (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of all the Oversight candidates, Majorly is the only one that I've worked with on multiple projects. As such, I already know that he'd make an excellent oversighter, and don't really need to read or even think about the decision (which requires more time than I have at the moment, hence this being my only !vote right now). EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Knowing that Majorly is 100% dedicated to making this (and other) Wikimedia projects work as best as possible, and knowing that he is trustworthy and honest, this additional tool is clearly going to benefit us. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Very responsible admin; Since he is a checkuser here, Majorly is acquainted to some of the responsibilities. I do not see a problem with giving him the extra flag. --Eptalon (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Yotcmdr on this one. Furthermore, the answer to the question is not satisfactory enough for me to be able to support this user at this time. Razorflame 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) It is obvious that I am biased about this, which is why I am abstaining from this vote. Thank you for helping me to realize this. Razorflame 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
How come? The answer to the question was "per policy". That seems to me to indicate that Majorly has read the policy and agrees with it. Does it really require a meaningless reiteration of that policy on this page in order for him to gain a support vote? He could have copied and pasted sections from that page and would that then have indicated a somehow better answer than merely providing a link to it? Frankly, I'm confused; the policy is clear, nothing more needs to be said really. fr33kmantalk 00:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That is precisely why I answered the way I did. I think questions that ask you to basically recite policy are poor and do not actually give any opportunity to show any insight or real understanding of the said policy. I have read the policy many times over the years, and I re-read it earlier today. I know when and when not to use oversight, as any person who is able to read and comprehend English would be able to. Frankly, it is wasting my time asking me to basically copy and paste when and when not to over here. What's the problem with my answer? Majorlytalk 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Very well said! Poor question, excellent answer! fr33kmantalk 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think the same than YotcmdrDavid0811 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to support or oppose, not that it will make any difference, due to my views that these elections are being improperly conducted. We should not be extending any time periods to get a required amount of votes - that's why we weren't going to start until September. I think we have some power hungry people wanting to get these started early...Goblin 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
I know your views on oversight already, but the reason these have started at this time is there is no point at all in dragging them out waiting and waiting, when there's stuff that's coming up on a regular basis that actually requires oversighting. This is nothing to do with power hunger, it's to do with wanting to get oversight locally so our local admins can protect the project without having to run to the stewards. Why is that such a problem? Majorlytalk 15:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As I keep saying, it's not that I don't support oversight or the candidates (I actually support most of them), it's the way about how they've been conducted that I find disturbing and so am choosing to instead make a comment. Goblin 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
Oh. What's disturbing about them? Majorlytalk 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe disturbing wasn't the right word to use... but basically what I said at the start. I don't feel that the elections are being conducted "fairly", nor in check with other elections that we have held (we've got 25 votes for CU elections in the past over 1 week, so why do we need three weeks for the OS ones? Why not just hold them off for a while). Also the fact that there still seems to be confusion over the 25 votes requirement makes me feel that they have been rushed. Goblin 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
I'm sorry, what confusion is there over the 25 support requirement? In the past we had more editors which is why we managed to hit 25 in a week. Who is going to be harmed if they are open longer? Being open longer leaves more time for supports and opposes. If anything its skewed more towards not getting OS if its open longer. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm still seeing people confuse 25 total votes and 25 support votes. That's the confusion. And I don't think our editor levels have actually changed all the much. If anything, i'd say we have more now than we used to have. Indeed, some of the RfOs prove that - they've been open about a week, and some are already nearing 25 votes. You're not going to change my views, and you're more than welcome to disagree with me. Goblin 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
Right and we had to extend a recent CU vote so we could get enough votes. Most of these OS have pretty much reached our limit of active users already having contributed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.