Wikiquote:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula

The following discussion is an archived debate. 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.

The result was: Successful application.

EVula

Hey look, it's everyone's favorite power-hungry editor! ;)

Hi everyone, I'm EVula (talk · contributions). I'll admit that I'm a fairly unusual bureaucrat candidate, in that I don't have years of Wikiquote experience to my credit (as InvisibleSun and UDScott did). However, I am a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia, and have some 270+ renames to my credit there. (I'm also a bureaucrat on Wikispecies and Meta, but it's on the English Wikipedia that I do the bulk of my 'crat work)

I'd like to get the 'crat flag here chiefly so I can perform renames. I just copied over {{renameuser}} (and a handful of related templates) to streamline the CHU process, and I can handle the more complicated requests like the one currently posted on the Village Pump. I'd be happy to also handle the occasional RfA (part of me was slightly concerned to see RyanCross's nominator be the same person to close, but at least it was unanimous, and I hardly disagree with the closing), but really, I'm most interested in helping with renames.

Acceptance: I accept my own nomination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've only seen positive things from EVula (talk · contributions) on this project, already trusted in the capacity of admin and the RfA was unanimously supported, and the user is already trusted in the bureaucrat capacity with experience as such across multiple other projects. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Definitely. EVula (talk · contributions) would be a fine bureaucrat for English Wikiquote, as there are some instances, such as Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/RyanCross that was closed by the nominator, where we do need another bureaucrat who knows what he or she is doing. Already a fine administrator for English Wikiquote and many other projects, and as a bureaucrat for our project, EVula can help with promotions, renames, and other bureaucrat duties. As the saying goes, "the more administrators there are the better," but it should also be, "the more bureaucrats there are the better." No harm in having too many bureaucrats. That just means requests needing bureaucrat attention or action will be handled quicker. I would be happy if all administrators here would be bureaucrats (mostly the active ones) as I trust them all. Anyway, EVula has significant experience as a bureaucrat at English Wikipedia and several other projects as said in the self-nomination, so no doubt will EVula do anything wrong here, and it would overall be a positive move for English Wikiquote. I have no problem if this request is a bit too early. Thank you. — RyanCross (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definitely a solid addition to the team and someone who understands the process better than most (including occasionally me). ~ UDScott 20:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - EVula seems to be a competent and trustworthy user of admin and bureaucrat tools. ~ Kalki 21:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EVula's knowledge and experience would be most welcome. - InvisibleSun 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EVula has demonstrated sufficient responsibility and ample aptitude to handle account maintenance tools. ~ Ningauble 15:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Trustworthy and able. BD2412 T 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Growing and thriving wikis benefit from the continued expansion of users in positions of trust. EVula has the experience and interest for the work. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has been over seven days since this discussion started, with unanimous support and no objection, neutrals, or other comments, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that anyone doubts the outcome, but bureaucrat nominations are supposed to run 14 days. (One of the drawbacks of using sub-pages.) ~ Ningauble 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty confidently say that I have no problem if we decide to make RfBs only run 7 days effective now. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EVula is now a bureaucrat. ~ Kalki 19:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.