Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/EVula

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 and Simple English Wikiquote, and member of the Wikimedia OTRS team  – in addition to roles as admin and/or bureaucrat at multiple other projects. 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 // &#9775;  // 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 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.

Note, placed meta request as this request has achieved the required 25 supports. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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  &#124; 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. &mdash; RyanCross (talk ) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support --SUL 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - of course :) - Alis o n  ❤ 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)
 * Done. See . Cirt (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)