Wikipedia:Requests for oversightership/Barras

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.

Barras

Barras (talk · contribs)

End date: June 9th I present Barras as a candidate for oversight. Barras is a trusted admin here, and has done lots of good work for Simple. Even though oversight is not in as high demand as other projects, it would be a good step to take as a precautionary measure. Barras is definitely trusted in my mind, and I believe that him gaining oversight will be a positive for Simple. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Well, thanks for the nom. I am happy to accept it. I will do the best if I will be one of the elected. I’ll do my best if I pass. If I don’t pass it won’t be the end of the world for me. Thanks for your time. Barras (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support As nom. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell not –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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, I'd prefer more time than just a month for extra privs. Majorly talk 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Concur in entirety with Majorly here. That said, I heart Barras, I just think this is needless. :) — neuro^(talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur in entirely with Majorly here Soup Dish (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Majorly. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this idea needs discussing with the full complement of active editors prior to just beginning a vote. (Nothing against the candidate) fr33kman ^talk 19:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Majorly and my views on IRC. Gob lin 09:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too many oversighters currently ... and we don't have any. GARDEN 09:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many ~~administrators~~ oversighters currently. (Credit to User:DougsTech from enWP for the quote. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but not need --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Per Meta, there is a minimum percentage of 70% support and 25 named users in support for the request to pass. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~On hold~~ - I will accept this nomination if we get at least three candidates. Barras (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per ST, the decision was to archive all these requests and remove them from the transclusion. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:58, 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.