Current nominations for oversightship edit
I wish to become an oversighter, because there are not enough wikipedians with oversight privileges. I've decided today is a good day to be bold, and create a section for nominations for oversightship. Succeeding here would not mean an automatic promotion, but an indication to the cabal that there is community support for me to use these powers.
I've identified edits that grossly violated wikipedia's policy on living people, and reported them to the oversight cabal. They eventually get dealt with. But it takes too long.
Getting oversight should be no big deal. Tasks involved with being an admin (which I am not currently), such as closing an AfD or banning a user, may be difficult, but deciding to delete a phone number or an address is easy. Andjam (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fnord! ViridaeTalk 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, looks ok at first glance. Remember that per Jimbo, oversight is not a big deal. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 13:22, April 1, 2008
- Thought he was oneTM Majorly (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BEANS -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me Articles touched by my noodly appendage 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I find self-nominations as prima facie evidence of powerhunger.Used without permission from Kmweber. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 04:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Candidate: I nominate this article as a FAC. Reliable sources and NPOV. The colour depth of the images gives the reader a clear impression of the subject matter. The article was also created by someone from Sydney, so it must be good. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)