Last modified on 8 October 2009, at 04:20

Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/EVula

EVula (talk · contributions)Edit

I am nominating EVula to be a candidate for checkuser permissions. EVula was successfully nominated on this project to admin (discussion) and bureaucrat (discussion). EVula already serves in trusted capacities as an oversighter at English Wikipedia [1] and Simple English Wikiquote [2], and member of the Wikimedia OTRS team [3] – in addition to roles as admin and/or bureaucrat at multiple other projects [4]. I think that Wikiquote could use another checkuser, and I feel that EVula would be a fine addition to the checkuser team here at this project.

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. We could use another CU, and I'm active enough that I can jump on requests fairly quickly. EVula // talk // // 18:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote ends: 19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (can stay open longer than 2 weeks if need be)


Per m:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser, candidate must receive consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting), and at least 25-30 editors' approval, to be considered for promotion.
  1. Support. As nom. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support. EVula is absolutely a strong member of the team and it would be of great use to have another CU. ~ UDScott 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support. I agree that another checkuser would be welcome and that EVula is well qualified for the work. - InvisibleSun 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support. EVula is a trustworthy admin with all the qualifications for the job. --Antiquary 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support. As nom. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. I've worked with EVula on numerous other projects in the past and I know him to be trustworthy and knowledgeable. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support as nom. EVula has personally given a lot of very good advice, and would be a good checkuser. Xeginy 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. Longtime good and trusted user. BD2412 T 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support per nomination. Razorflame 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support.--Jusjih 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support per Julian. NuclearWarfare 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support I know you'd do a good job The C of E 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support --Ixfd64 01:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support as nom. Counterpower 03:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support I agree with this nomination. Tab1of2 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support, and always have supported EVula. — RyanCross (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support --SUL 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support - of course :) - Alison 02:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support - Should do fine. Tiptoety 05:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support Majic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support - Maximillion Pegasus 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support - From the little experience I have here I already thought you were one. I must be equivocating bureaucrat with checkuser :) . . . ; anyway, from what I've experienced so far, you're qualified. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 21:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support Trustworthiness already shown. Ty 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support Sure. — Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support - no problems. Nifky? 03:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, placed meta request as this request has achieved the required 25 supports. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. See [5]. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.