Meta:Requests for oversight/Barras

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Barras

• Barras (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hello. I would like to nominate Barras for the role of oversighter. We currently do not have enough oversighters to fulfil the request workload. Barras is active and willing to undertake the role. As a steward he already has substantial experience, and is identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept the nomination as I currently see some need for more oversighters here on meta. -Barras talk 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Obvious Strong support, per his experience and his hard work and total lack of lazyness. Savh^ñ 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

   Well, I wouldn't go that far! PeterSymonds (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Support & thank you for volunteering. In spite of the current number of oversighters at meta an important part of them are not active in that role. I understand that folks in July/August may be on vacation and have the right to take them but it's been 72 hours that I've sent a request to the mailing list to have some private info suppressed and I'm still waiting for a reply. Barras is active and trusted and has my support. Regards. — MA (audiencia) 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
3.  Support @MarcoAurelio: I'm already waiting for weeks and still no one replied, not even Courcelles - our most active oversighter. Trijnstel_talk 21:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Fourth support. However, I think it would actually be a net positive to simply have stewards perform oversighting here on meta instead of naming a small subset of them for the role locally. Jafeluv (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

   I totally agree with you. Trijnstel_talk 23:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

5.  Support Your help is much appreciated. I agree with Jafeluv, by the way. Mathonius (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Strong support, per Savh. :D Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 03:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
7.  Support Active, reliable and a good steward.Érico ^msg 04:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
8.  Support --N KOzi^Talk 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
9.  Support My experience with Barras leads me to believe that he can be trusted with this role. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Oh yeah. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
11.  Support, naturellement. –SJ talk  09:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
12.  Support But I do have concerns that Barras already has a lot on his plate - IRC, steward etc. if he feels he can handle it, I have no objection. Theo10011 (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Strong support--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Obviously yes; I agree with Jafeluv though. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
15.  Support --Meno25 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Strong support micki 08:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
17. A very trusted and sane user. If Meta needs more oversights, Barras would be a good choice. Rjd0060 (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
18.  Support.--Avocato (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
19.  Support A very trusted user. –BruTe ^talk 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
20.  Support Trusted --Katarighe (Talk) 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
21. The certainty that the job will be done correctly. I have the same opinion of Jafeluv above, specially for cross-wiki issues. Meta has a low ammount of editing in comparison with large projects, but it has plenty of users to watch and fix any possible misuse. ‴ Teles «Talk ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
22.  Support, certainly. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
23.  Support --Z 21:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
24.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
25.  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
26.  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
27.  Support --Dede2008 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
28.  Support a×p_de^Hello! 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
29.  Support --Vituzzu (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)