User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009

How I voted in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009.

Checkusership

East718

East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I cannot comfortably support East718 for Checkusership. First off, I seem to remember that he was the admin who flooded the Main Page with useless revisions, [1][2] to prevent it from being deleted, and the action sparked this long discussion on AN, and Tim Starling, a developer, reckoned that East718 should have been desysopped for his role in the incident. While it took place a year ago in February 2008, East718 has made it clear on more than one occasion that he believes adults are unable to change their behavior, and that all past behavior must be considered when evaluating people (which is fair to a point, but unfair when penalizing someone forever for their mistakes): see the following diffs, [3][4][5] it's because of him thinking that why I am unable to look past the Main Page incident, and do not feel comfortable with him having Checkusership. In addition, the last 250 article edits in East718's contributions have very little article writing, and mainly consist of protections and automated edits, which is bad because he believes admins should be content writers [6][7], and I also believe that giving him Checkuser rights would further distract from his article work. Finally, I also recall an indefinite block of Majorly that was heavy-handed, rushed, and unnecessary, and swiftly overturned by Alison; and as with the Main Page incident, it's not an action I'd want a Checkuser to take. Acalamari 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: strong oppose.

Kingturtle

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

Kingturtle seems to have experience with sockpuppetry cases; I don't believe he'd abuse the tool. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: support.

Kylu

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

Everything I know about Kylu, both my observations of her, and my occasional interaction with her, lead me to believe that she can be trusted with Checkusership. She is experienced and easy to talk to, which are excellent qualities. Acalamari 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: support.

Lucasbfr

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

• Has always been a sensible and trustworthy user to me: he seems experienced, and I think he'd be good with Checkuser. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: support.

NawlinWiki

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

Totally trustworthy: he often asks for Checkuser help (he's done far more work in dealing with Grawp than any other user has), and based on my interactions and observations with NawlinWiki, he won't abuse the tool. Acalamari 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: support.

Versageek

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

I don't know much about Versageek to make a decision. I shall not vote on her candidacy either way. Good administrator, however, and support her with the tools. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: no vote.

Oversightship

Daniel Case

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

I wasn't very happy about this listing to Missing Wikipedians about Kmweber; Missing Wikipedians is for remembering Wikipedians who stopped editing for whatever reason, and the message there doesn't seem that way. While I have no comment on Kmweber, I don't believe that the content written about that user was very appropriate, plus, it was Daniel Case who initiated the ban discussion that caused Kmweber to leave anyway. This being said, Daniel Case is a great admin overall, I support him being an admin, and might support him for Oversight should he decide to run again. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: oppose.

DerHexer

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

He's a steward, and DerHexer is trustworthy. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: support.

Dweller

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

Dweller withdrew. Acalamari 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston

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

I don't know much about EdJohnston to make a decision. I shall not vote on his candidacy either way. Good administrator, however, and support him with the tools. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: no vote.

EVula

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

EVula is highly experienced and friendly. He holds trusted positions on a few Wikis, including being a bureaucrat on this Wikipedia. He knows the policy and I have confidence in his abilities. Acalamari 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: support.

Lar

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

Lar withdrew. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Luna Santin

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

I've known Luna Santin for almost my entire time here. He's very helpful, friendly, knowledgable, is a Checkuser, and is respected. No issues here. Acalamari 17:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: strong support.

Mailer diablo

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

Mailer diablo is a long-term editor and admin who I believe is very, very trustworthy. He is firm but fair, and giving him Oversightship will be a net positive. He knows policy, and he won't abuse the tool. Acalamari 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: support.

MBisanz

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

I'm not sure about MBisanz; he seems to be everywhere and has a lot on his plate, which in some cases, is a good thing, but at the same time, it can be stressful, and I don't want MBisanz "burning out", as it's called. It would be good if he took a rest from that and worked on some articles occasionally, both for his own sake and the encyclopedia's. This being said, MBisanz is unlikely to abuse the tool, and is a very good admin, which is why I had no intention of opposing him. Acalamari 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion: no vote.