Support = 33; Oppose = 0; Neutral = 0 - 100% Result. 33 votes, 100% support. Seems pretty clear, we want Rama for an oversighter. As required by policy: The minimum 25 votes in support threshold has been met. The minimum 80% support threshold has been met. A request will be made at Meta (and noted here when satisfied either by the steward fulfilling it, or by a 'crat) ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Request placed at meta:  ... awaiting identification by Rama and fulfillment by a steward. (other than me) ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Request has been fulfilled:  ... Thogo turned his access on for him. ++Lar: t/c 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Checkuser and Oversight requests run for 2 weeks. This request will close no earlier than two weeks after 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (the time/date of acceptance) which is 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Community! I would like to suggest to you Rama as a new oversighter for Commons. You might first ask yourself while reading this request is "Do we need more oversighters?". I asked this question to the two current oversighters, Lar and Raymond. The two said that a third oversighter would be helpful, because we then would have a better segmentation of tools and more users to discuss sensitive matters relating to oversight.
But now to why I believe Rama is the best for this position: Rama is a long-term contributor to the Wikimedia-projects. He is sysop on the english and the french Wikipedia as well as here on Commons. That indicates that he is very good with languages. He speaks french (native), english (really good), german (better than he admits) and latin (I cant say how good) and he has also some knowledge of italian, spanish and japanese. This also points out how good he fits into an international community.
I have known Rama for a long time. In my first days on commons he performed sysop actions for me and helped me understanding commons, and in my first days as a sysop (This Monday that will be a year ago) he also helped me with the first sysop decisions. So from this long term knowledge I can say that he is a very friendly, cooperative and kind user. abf/talk to me/ 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
With the understanding that this is a mostly technical position and not unlike what I have been doing on the OTRS, and sensitive to the honour of this nomination, I accept it. Rama (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - we need a third Oversighter (and we need an other one instead Lar - he now has all positions: Admin, Oversighter, Bureaucrat, Stewart here - such a collection of functions in only one hand is not OK!) Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
You missed Checkuser. :) Suffice it to say, I don't agree with you at all, Marcus, but that's not a topic for this discussion. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right - is also not against you as person - but... (yes, you're right, not here). Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I have every confidence that Rama has the sound judgment and discretion necessary to carry out this task. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I've known Rama through either his works and his relationships with people. The quality of his implication on Commons is not to proof any more, so I glagly bring my support here. →Ditithepenguin — 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Support & strongly. Long term user & good experience. I have my faith in Rama that he will never abuse this sensitive tool. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hard-working trustworthy contributor to the Wikimedia Commons. -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Would one of the current oversighters give us an overview of how often the tools is used? Say, how many log entries over the past month or something? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Like Mike really. I know there is no obligation etc etc but when I had the rights I felt some record for all to see might be good. So - how many actions over the past "x" period would be interesting? Thanks --Herbytalk thyme 15:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
To Mike and Herby... Special:Oversight now gives (those with oversight permission) a log of actions performed. In the log there is a link to see the item removed... an entry looks like this: (with some info changed into generic:
(details) (diff) hh:mm, nn month CCYY Lar removed an edit from File:someFile.jpg (remove personally identifying information at request of author)
To the question of frequency of use:
In the last 30 days there are 72 entries. (72 individual things oversighted).
In the month before, there are 9.
In the month before that, 1.
In the month before that, 5.
Now, when you read this, you have to also think about "incidents" rather than raw changes. It's possible that one "incident" results in multiple entries. For example, if a user comes and says "the first three files I uploaded, in the description, there is PII (personally identifiable information), can you remove it?"... it may take many individual oversights to get rid of it (the file may have 10 changes to the image text before the PII is gone. So if I count incidents instead of entries...
In the last month I get 3 incidents (spread out over more than 3 pages... this is a prime example, one of the files took many oversights to get rid of the info.).
In the month before that, there are 3.
In the month before that 1.
In the month before that 4.
I don't hold oversight on en:wp but I think our frequency is far far lower than there. But higher than Meta, for example. I hope that helps. Now that things are logged by the tool, I'm not sure a log like Herby's is necessary. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes - actions always were logged so that Oversighters could see it, my log was so that the community who elected me had some idea what I was up to. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)