Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/EVula

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EVula[edit]

EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I have been an administrator on Wikipedia for more than two years. In that time, I've established an excellent track record of quickly and efficiently eliminating vandalism. I'd like to extend that to removing oversight-deserving edits. I'm familiar with the policies surrounding oversight, and have even made a few requests myself (which were always addressed quickly, but when dealing with personal editor information being exposed, faster is always better). I can easily be gotten hold of via email, IRC, or AIM, and my job keeps me tied to a computer (meaning that I'm able to jump on any requests regardless of what time it is, and I tend to work odd hours, depending on the project). I am over 18 and am already identified with the Foundation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for EVula[edit]

  • I stated both on his stewardship candidacy page and on his talk page that I would support his stewartship election were I to have suffrage. I certainly feel EVula has demonstrated the judgment necessary to handle the oversight right with care. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How can you use oversight in mainspace, when you have little mainspace activity? miranda 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the best way to make your point, when the answer is "Very easily". --Deskana (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I addressed the question to EVula, but thanks for your comments. miranda 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My current edit count via wannabe_kate is 28795.[1] Of those edits, 8981 are in the main article space; roughly 31% of my edits are in the main article space. Personally, I think that's a fairly good average; probably not the highest on Wikipedia, but article editing isn't some sort of "game" I need to win. Regardless of where the bulk of my edits lie, I don't think it has much bearing on removing copyright infringement, libel, or personal information quickly and quietly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find that EVula has a long and varied history of all sorts of wiki-gnome work, both to articles and behind the scenes; rarely seeking drama or to draw attention to his contributions. Given that oversight is, pretty much by definition, a job that requires quiet discretion and generally receives little acknowledgement I think that his contribution pattern basically demonstrates exactly the attitude necessary... I can't personally see the relevance of large-scale mainspace contribution to the duties of an oversight. ~ mazca t|c 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much hats already. Besides, doesn't he be nominated himself for the 2009 steward election?--Caspian blue 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much only if it contained personally identifying information (since I'd be surprised if someone purposefully posted libel or a copyvio and then contacted me about it, though I'd obviously oversight those, too). If someone accidentally posted under an IP (and it was clearly tied back to them), or wanted to remove their real name from their userpage, I'd consider those to be valid examples. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#EVula. Acalamari 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of EVula[edit]

  2. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Hermione1980 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BJTalk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mr.Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kuru talk 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. rootology (C)(T) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Noroton (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Andre (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ mazca t|c 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  GARDEN  11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Xclamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Jack Merridew 12:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. — Jake Wartenberg 13:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Tex (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. لennavecia 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Majorly talk 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - ScarianCall me Pat! 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Richard0612 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Húsönd 21:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. LittleMountain5 23:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Law shoot! 04:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Dreadstar † 06:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. arimareiji (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Synergy 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sam Blab 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sticky Parkin 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. - Philippe 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yes -Royalguard11(T) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. --chaser (away) - talk 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support --Versus22 talk 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. David Shankbone 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Accounting4Taste:talk 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. CharlotteWebb 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Kennedy (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Rje (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Megaboz (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Kralizec! (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. --Chasingsol(talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Acalamari 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Enigmamsg 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Graham87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to EVula[edit]

  1. Oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gurch (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RMHED. 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Chick Bowen 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. THE GROOVE 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — neuro(talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Useight (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prodego talk 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Aitias // discussion 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Epbr123 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Caspian blue 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. seresin ( ¡? )  20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Secret account 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/February_2009_election/Oversight/EVula&oldid=1140152681"