Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Bsadowski1 2

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship. Please do not modify it.


Bsadowski1

[change source]
Bsadowski1 (talk · contribs)

End date: 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating Brian for checkusership. Since his previous failed nomination, which I opposed on, Brian has taken upon himself the role of a sort of assistant to checkusers. Brian has helped both myself and Jamesofur with countless CUs. Having had lots of time to experience this help I've learned that Brian has both the technical knowledge of checkuser and sockpuppetry and the logical knowledge of when it should be performed. Brian is also a trainee SPI clerk on enWP and this shows that he has been determined to have the skills needed in this area. Whilst SPIs are not 100% of a checkuser's workload, they are a very great deal of it. He is often in #wikimedia-stewards, and is voiced in #stewardbot, which shows a high level of trust also since voiced users can issue commands to stewardbot for later commital. In case people are concerned abut the level of CUs needing to be done, and whether or not we could make use of another, I can assure the community there certainly is enough work; a large increase has occured in the past little while also. Please consider him for the position of checkuser on the Simple English Wikipedia. fr33kman 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination: I would like to add my co-nomination for Brian's checkusership. He was not completely ready when he last requested but since then has gained alot of experience and trust. Perhaps even more importantly he has shown that he is mature enough to ask for advice or assistance when he is unsure of a result. As Fr33kman said above the amount of work is not low, sadly the projects connections to the English Wikipedia often means we also have to deal with many of their worst vandals and sockpuppeteers. Brian has shown that he is up to the job both with his work with Fr33kman and I and through his work with the En CU community at SPI and I fully support him seeking this position within the simple community. James (T C) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. fr33kman 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kansan (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As co-nom James (T C) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. fine –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Isis♠(talk) 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support - No reason not to but still not into it, assuming good faith.--  † CR90  01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. +1 --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nifky^ 08:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Barras talk 09:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Yottie =talk= 10:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Per Fr33kman and James. Besides, I trust Bsadowski. Classical Esther 10:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. —§ stay (sic)! 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Sure.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I don't see why not. Good editor, doesn't seem like he'll start checkusering prominent people. Buggie111 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. You've done well as an admin and learning en:SPI clerking makes me feel comfortable that you'll know what you're doing. EhJJTALK 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Others like him, so I'll be in accordance. Haven't interacted much w/him, but I'll give him my vote if for no other reason than to stop this from being hung Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes; I trust him with checkuser. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Mercy (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Should have been made one last time. Majorly talk 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Can be trusted with the tools. Quantum4 Send me a message 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - would make an excellent CU - Peterdownunder (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support. According to other editors, he has helped out a lot in the checkuser processes and is suitable for being a checkusership. O.320939697.O 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. This should do it. Lauryn☆ 18:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. He won't misuse the tools. Megan|talkchanges 02:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. He's a pretty cool guy. :P (Qualified too!) --cremepuff222 (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]

Comments

[change source]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkusership/Bsadowski1_2&oldid=8876362"