Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Vector 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Vector (checkuser)

for the same reason I would like to candidate myself as CU, and as we can see here M7 is not too active, thanks all. --vector ^_^ (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support - I think Vector would be capable and trustworthy for the checkuser flag --Eptalon (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - Proved himself to be a great 'crat; has the potential to be a checkuser. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree with above. --Yegoyan (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Although not the most active of users, I trust vector and Think he would make a more than capable checkuser. IuseRosary? ^(talk) 19:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose I'm sorry, but you aren't active enough here to warrant my vote for checkuser. I think that if you want checkuser, you should at least be here more often than you have been. Razorflame 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose 'crat action is not enough. The special function and trust of a CU demands a more detailed active knowledge of events and issues to gain my trust and vote.--Bärliner 13:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - plain and simple.--  † ChristianMan16  22:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What can a checkuser do other check out IPs and sock-puppets? I know that it is helpful but for a person that's is on as often as you doesn't deserve the tools in my point of view. Even if this is what you really want, it's just simply unfair because there are user such as Razorflame who deserve tools is active, and you will receive checkuser as a little active user. I'm sorry. --♥Amy Ames♥ (inbox) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Sock of banned user -- Creol(talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**As a 'crat Vector already has the tools to rename etc. CU is very different.--Bärliner 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not active enough Ajayc (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Sockpuppet of User:Simple11.-- Lights  talk  13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

@ Razorflame: enough active sure?

• Special:Log/makebot
• Special:Log/rights
• Special:Log/renameuser

I don't have thousands of edit in ns=0 but I have a lot of 'rat action...and I can help with CU's flag. --vector ^_^ (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I agree that you have been active with your 'crat actions, it's your administrator actions that I look at when I decide whether or not you need CU abilities. I just haven't seen your name on here enough to warrant you for CU. Why should we vote for someone who would be just as active as M7 if there is another user that would be much more active on here to make it actually worth it's while to get him the CU privledges? Razorflame 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment as on Tygrrr's nomination; I do not think that Vector would make a bad checkuser; I doubt however that we need another checkuser at our current level of requests. The same comment applies here too, the hassles involved of being granted checkuser status are relatively big, compared to what you actually get. --Eptalon (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.