Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/Synergy

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.

Synergy[change source]

Synergy (talk · contribs)

End date: June 9th, 2009 I'd like to present Synergy to the community as a candidate for oversight. Local oversighters, although not constantly needed, would be a great thing to have. Synergy is a longtime trusted admin here at Simple, and although he has been on a break for a little bit, he would definitely be trustworthy to have as an oversighter. He is presumably also over the legal age of 18 for oversight. Once again, I believe Synergy gaining oversight would be a positive for the project. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you. I accept. Synergy 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[change source]

  1. Support As nom. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why the hell not –Juliancolton | Talk 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I think he will do a good job with the tools. I don't see a reason why not. Barras (talk) 20:51, 2 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? (This is nothing personal against the candidate though, who I think is a fine admin/person). Majorly talk 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Concur in entirety with Majorly here. — neuro(talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose the fact that we're having elections so soon, with barely discussing if its even required. Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose like my sex life, this is premature. Soup Dish (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that absolutely necessary? And have you considered doing some actual work here, as opposed to simply voting on things? Majorly talk 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No and yes. I would patrol recent changes but the recent changes are only about 1% mainspace! Soup Dish (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Majorly. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:58, 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 09:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose too many oversighters already ... and we don't have any.  GARDEN  09:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too many administrators oversighters currently. (Credit to User:DougsTech from enWP for the quote. Pmlinediter  Talk 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. sorry but not need --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

Per Meta, 70% support and 25 named users in support is necessary for the request to succeed. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On Hold: I'm putting this on hold until we have more candidates. We'd need two people with oversight and I'd like to wait until we have a few more users to gauge, preferably 3-4 more. Synergy 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per ST, the decision was to archive all these requests and remove them from the transclusion. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:59, 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/Synergy&oldid=1574915"