Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/QuiteUnusual

+Rollbacker
Has been doing good antivandalism work over the past while. Rollback would make their life easier. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept, thank you Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support I just thinking the same thing. He's a hard worker who does his homework. An asset to the community. --Swift (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Enthusiastically. --Jomegat (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support-It would be "quite useful" for them.-Red4tribe (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

✅ --dark lama  21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

+Administrator
I've been watching User:QuiteUnusual for a while now, and I believe he is an ideal candidate for becoming an Administrator. In my RC patrols, I have seen that he has been quite active, and as there seem to be few admins actively engaged in RC patrolling, I think it's time we add another. QU has been engaged in a heroic fight against vandalism and his efforts were most recently rewarded with abuse at the hands of a vandal. IMO, he could really make good use of the block tool. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't have an admin covering the UTC morning shift, and QU is ideally situated for that duty. QU has also been spot-on when it comes to tagging pages for speedy deletions, which is an indicator to me that he would use the tool wisely. --Jomegat (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words and I am pleased to accept your nomination. I am fairly new here, but I hope I have established sufficient experience across both this and other Wikimedia projects in the last 30 months to be safe with the additional tools. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * - as per my nomination. --Jomegat (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * --Panic (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - per nom. -- SB_Johnny  talk 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * . --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support While he's a fairly new Wikibookian, Qu got quickly up to speed and has maintained a steady commitment to a number of fields which have greatly benefited the project. His judgement has been sound and the tools will allow him to work more efficiently. --Swift (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - what can I say here that hasn't already been said? Chazz (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

+Bureaucrat
QU's been a very helpful member of the WB community since 2008, and is one of the few active admins. Since Thenub314's activity level has been rapidly decreasing, I'd like to nominate QU for the bureaucrat right. He has already stated that he would accept the 'crat right. Kayau 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can think of no better candidate. Since he's willing, I say give him the buttons. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Chazz (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Has my support. Please remember to make this more visible as to comply with the requirements and if anyone has the time, please update the policy in relation to the names of required/indicated locations for the announcement. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy states the request must be announced in the Reading Room (which I think this RFP page counts as part of) and consideration should be given to posting on the Bulletin Board. I've added a notice to the BB. Thanks. QU TalkQu 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think RFP has not the visibility that the old Reading Room had (hence the distinction since the RFP already existed at the time). I don't have any information but in theory most Wikibookians will not keep this page under watch, unless they belong to the administration or have done a request themselves.
 * The BB has also suffered a loss in general visibility, an equivalent today would be using the site wide banner. Not that I think it will bring more people to the discussion, but as the policy states, these discussions are more weighty than that those for the creation of an admin. I take it as somewhat of an to attempt to assure that the general Wikibookian is kept aware of this sort of procedures if only to make the process fully participative and transparent. This also serves to empower the position to the community and validate to it.  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Okay, I've updated the site notice accordingly. Thanks. QU TalkQu 12:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He has my vote. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely, wholeheartedly agree! Whoop whoop pull up (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mattb112885 (talk to me) 01:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trusted. I haven't been active on Wikibooks lately but I've seen QU doing some good work in the past. Tempodivalse 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A great candidate with a solid track record Reece   (Talk)   (Contributions)  14:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * +1 for bureaucrat rights for QU. JamesCrook (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A good and sound editor and admin.--Wisden (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does good work and should do well as a crat. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He has my support. Swatkatz14 (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg Support. After seeing QuiteUnusual assess and show the will to follow through on community consensus during the Thekohser incident, I feel he possesses the mentality needed for a bureaucrat examining discussions dealing with the creation of new administrators. – Adrignola discuss 15:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg I also support him. kaushlendratripathi 4 April 2011

+CheckUser
Hello, I am not one to seek additional user rights (having ended up with the ones I have following nomination and persuassion by others). We don't get the need for Checkuser activity very often but it does come up. With the existing CUs my friends Thenub314 and Adrignola being somewhat less active than in the past I feel we are a little exposed when action is required. It is always an option to ask a Steward but again I think we should strive for independence. I'm volunteering, but I won't be upset if the community thinks it is unnecessary, another admin wants to volunteer or you think I'm the wrong person. Thanks QU TalkQu 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Flag granted. Thanks to all for participating :)  fr33k man -s-  13:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) - QU has definitely gained the trust of this user, and I believe the need for an active CU is real. Thanks for volunteering. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) As Jomegat said.  Iirc, CU votes require a specific number and proportion of votes in favor, and need to be have been properly announced in various public places.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, 25 votes and placed on the site notice or bulletin board - I'll attend to those, thanks for the reminder QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 18:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) not much I can say here, except that I trust QuiteUnusual. Chazz (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I think he is well qualified for the role. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Less a question of QU's competence than the project's ability to garner 25 votes on anything. – Adrignola discuss 00:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Afaik, there's no specific time limit on how long a CU vote can be kept open. I understand that to be quite important in garnering a sufficient number of votes on smaller projects.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No time limit indeed, and yes it could take months. Another reason I guess to have a third CU in case one of the existing two resigns leaving us without anyone for months... <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 07:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Certainly, trusted and experienced. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Sounds like a plan. The need may not be as great as it has been, or could be, but I see a legitimate claim here. Msaikens (discuss)
 * 3) QU has my trust too. Lukáš Sedlák (discuss)
 * 4) I am new here but I feel compelled to support QU, for the time he spent supporting us. User:Auremel (discuss)
 * 5) --Swatkatz14 (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) --  Liam987 ( talk ) 18:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) -   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Xerol Oplan (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Sounds good to me.--Cultures17
 * 10) I have faith in QU.  He is clearly a civic-minded contributor -- Cultures92 (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Pluke (discuss • contribs) 09:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 12)  I trust that <font color="#E66C2C">QU will use it rarely and responsibly. Better to have 1 or 2 CUs than to have none. --Paul James (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it isn't possible to have 1 CU; it's considered too much power over a project to be held unilaterally by a single user, so if a project has two CUs, and one of them resigns, the other loses the privs. This actually happened to Wikibooks in 2010, when Mike.lifeguard resigned: Adrignola was de-CU'd until the community voted to en-CU Thenub314.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Part of the rationale of having two CUs is so that one can monitor the other because only a CU can monitor the CU log. That means it is important to have an active group of CUs (i.e., while having two meets the rules, if one is inactive then it doesn't meet the purpose) - hence why, with the two current CUs being less active (one of them very much so) I thought it a good idea to have a third. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 15:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) A necessary role and a candidate with a suitable track record. ChrisHodgesUK (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) A great plan! QU has certainly demonstrated his responsibility.--Cultures4 (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) No doubt about the fact that I have been less active then I wish I could be as a CU, and another member of the team sounds like a good idea.  I couldn't have hand chosen a better potential candidate.  QU is a long standing member of the community, active, and more than capable of the job.  I support his nomination. Thenub314 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) because I'd hate to have CU be needed and no one be there to do so. TwelveBaud (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This user has never made any edit whatever to Wikinews, except for this vote. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Wikibooks either ;-) (adding later - but see comment from user below) <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) QU is incredibly conscientious and I am sure he will be equally so with these powers.--Collingwood (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes! -- Katarighe  ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 12:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, since Chazz, Panic2k4, Pi zero, Jomegat, and Adrignola are good with it, I am too. Pearts (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes! -- kaushlendratripathi  ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 12:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Note: I have left a message on the IP talk page asking them to login to !vote <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 09:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not like that QuiteUnusual's candidacy has been advertised in the sitenotice. If that is common practice, please let me know. Harej (discuss • contribs) 04:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules for CheckUser nomination are set by the stewards, rather than local to the project, and I believe that in fact the stewards do require advertisement in the sitenotice, or equivalent. Chazz (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The requirement to advertise on the site notice and in the reading room is long established. See the last CU election for example. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 06:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no specific requirement to use site notice, only that the event gives the community appropriate notice of an important request. Generally the format for the elections is dealt with locally and not by the stewards excepting for numbers partaking etc.  fr33k man <font color="darkgreen" size="1">-s-  13:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no specific requirement to use site notice, only that the event gives the community appropriate notice of an important request. Generally the format for the elections is dealt with locally and not by the stewards excepting for numbers partaking etc.  fr33k man <font color="darkgreen" size="1">-s-  13:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) If the "25 votes" rule includes abstentions (the idea being to demonstrate that at least 25 active users saw the vote, considered it legitimate, and intended to accept its result), then I hereby abstain. (If the "25 votes" rule only includes votes in support, then anyone should please feel free to remove this. I've never interacted with the nominee, so I don't think it would make sense for me to vote in support.) Ruakh&#32;(talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording is After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval. So an abstain has no material effect I guess. We should leave it in place <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 17:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
For the benefit of others: QU, have you read through the CheckUser policy? In what situations do you feel the tool should be used and do you feel you have an understanding of IP addresses, user agents, and subnetting to properly interpret output from the tool? – Adrignola discuss 00:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the policy on a number of occasions, and to save everyone else from going to look, the summary is "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects.". The important point of your question is when do I feel it would be appropriate to use it here. Rather than describe the CU policy in detail I'll explain the circumstances in which I think it is appropriate to use CU here within the constraints of the policy.


 * CU is a last resort after all other measures to protect the project and its good faith users have failed. On WB it rarely needs using - blocking of logged in users and IP vandals requires no use of the tool. There is no need to establish if a vandalising IP is a previously blocked user as the IP can be blocked due to their own behaviour. The circumstances in which I think it is appropriate to use it are:


 * When a vandal is using multiple accounts and is able to bypass the autoblock by changing their IP rapidly. When this continues over an extended period (sometimes weeks) it may become necessary to block the whole IP range including blocking logged in users to prevent mass vandalism and harassment of other editors. The "cucumber" vandal is an example of this scenario.  To identify the IP range requires the CU tool. Although the vandal may be shifting IP rapidly this will always be within a limited range (either within the range available to their ISP or organisation if they are sitting behind a proxy - the former is more common). Caution is obviously needed in range blocking as the collateral damage can be large. Knowing this is actually a requirement for admins (who can range block) rather than specific to CUs.
 * If there is a user operating an account that there is reasonable suspicion is a community banned user but there is sufficient doubt to warrant an additional check before blocking. That is, if there is enough evidence to block the new sockpuppet without a CU then there would be no need to CU. This is very rare on WB - I'm not sure we've ever community banned anyone - so unlikely to arise.
 * Where there is reasonable suspicion that requires confirmation that a user is operating multiple accounts in breach of the policy (e.g., to influence policy or decision making by voting multiple times). This hasn't happened here but given the small size of the community may come up at some point as a sockmaster could get policy changed, or even a sysop bit, by using a small number of puppets.
 * In response to serious harassment or legal threats from a logged in user where it became necessary to identify the underlying IP to report the abuse to their ISP or organisation. By "serious harassment" I mean threats to life, limb or security that appear to be or are likely to be illegal. This is allowed by the policy but would usually follow a request from the Foundation following a complaint so I think it is unlikely. In these circumstances I would probably block without the CU and call a Steward as the harassment would almost certainly need suppression (aka oversight). I'd then report the problem to the WMF for advice if necessary. There are similar allowances for the use of CU on some projects where suicide is threatened to help the appropriate authorities to respond. Hopefully we'll never see that here.


 * Do I understand how IP, subnets, agents, etc., work - yes. Rather than go into a detailed explanation (which, let's be honest I could crib from Wikipedia if I wanted to fool people!) I'll just say I'm an IT professional with 23 years in the industry with extensive knowledge of application software, system software and infrastructure from mainframes to distributed systems. I've run data centre build outs, network refreshes and so on for big corporations. Most relevant to this I ran a large web platform development and support team for a major financial services firm so I'm very familiar with IP networking and web based tools and applications. I can even develop in PHP, shame my JavaScript and Python are rubbish. I also have the CU extension deployed on a wiki I run so I'm aware of the technical use of the tool. Anybody wants to look into this I'm happy to share my real life identity with you (it is hardly a challenge to find it to be honest) so ping me an email if you like.


 * One final point is the use of CU data. I'm aware it cannot be shared or published except with other CUs if necessary. I am an OTRS member where the same privacy rules apply and I'm able to apply them appropriately I believe.
 * Thanks <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response. I shall try not to be jealous of your IT experience. :) – Adrignola discuss 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly that comes from being 20 years older than you I suspect! <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 15:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I observe that some of these votes are more certainly valid than others. Perhaps we should accumulate, say, 30 before acting on the result, to be sure the result can't be called into question. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could "call out" the "less valid" votes and how you assess them? Not aware we have a policy on validity (like minimum number of edits). I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but I think such a statement ("more certainly valid than others") should be tested to see what the community thinks as it has broader implications for the future. Without a policy, who judges validity? <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 06:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll expand on this a bit. There are two separate issues I think.

<font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 09:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The first is for general "votes" on WB - should we set criteria about who is eligible to vote and to what "votes" should these criteria apply (permissions, deletion, featured books?).
 * The second is for CU votes specifically because these are governed by the meta policy. On projects with no ArbCom then the Stewards judge the consensus, etc., before deciding whether or not to grant the CU flag. The meta policy is silent on the "quality" of votes but the Steward can use their own judgement (e.g., ignoring anything that appears to be a sock). We could propose a tightening of the meta policy but as it applies to all non-ArbCom projects it may be harder to make it happen.
 * If a user (as identified by their account) is not in any meaningful way a member of the Wikibooks community, such as the user whose vote is (as I've noted under it) the only edit they've ever made on Wikibooks, then it does not seem reasonable to construe their vote as providing any insight into the will of the community. I've no wish to prompt the creation of additional red tape; I'm just trying to apply common sense to the matter.  And likewise, if we can produce a vote that has some extra slop in it, so that marginal cases don't have to be wikilawyered, let's by all means produce a vote with some extra slop in it.
 * On the other side (supporting validity), it is perhaps worth noting here a superficially somewhat disconcerting, but not apparently nefarious, similarity of usernames occurs above due to votes from three members of the Devonshire MS Editorial Group (Cultures17, Cultures92, and Cultures4).
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the habit of "class" or "group" projects having similar account names can look odd. I presumed the "vote" you were referring to was the single edit one, and I agree it seems odd and should be discounted. It's an interesting situation at WB - with the community being quite small (especially the part that actively engages in discussions rather than content editing) one might presume that lightweight policy was appropriate. However, I find the opposite the case - with so few people expressing a view it is hard to draw a consensus and there is no detailed policy in which to found decisions. For example, it is quite unclear who should close RfD discussions (any editor or admins only) and whether an involved editor can close a discussion (this is a real example from last week). Without a clear policy we should be able to work it out by discussion - but nobody contributes to the discussion so it's impossible to get clear guidance. Don't get me wrong, I really don't want to write a WP style policy manual for WB and try and get it adopted. I'm just saying it can be challenging. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 15:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Being small can be an advantage here - anyone already "in the community" (such as it is) would recognize most of the names who've voted above, and it's not an excessive burden to manually check the rest. Xerol Oplan (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that votes from users with few or no previous edits should be discounted or discredited. For all we know the person has previously been making positive contributions before they created their account, and created the account in order to participate more fully in the community. If we wanted to be picky about who we want to vote, then the voting invitation banner that pops up on every page should make clear that only "well-known community members" (whoever they are) are expected to take part in these kinds of decisions. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's where I started from (because in the absence of policy or precedent it seemed the right approach). For the one person we were discussing it is quite an old account and has other project contributions so it's not likely a sock or an SPA so if it was me making the call I would include it. I feel conflicted between saying we should have a policy in future but feeling reluctant to suggest we spend time on policy instead of content. We are quite good at disenfranchising new editors anyway with the Reviewer situation (where a lot of new WB users with experience on other projects seem to feel it is a sleight to their competence) and having some kind of threshold before you are allowed to fully participate just feels wrong to me. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 20:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As QuiteUnusual quoted above, the policy is "after gaining consensus ... in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval." I may not be a Wikibooks editor -- I've used various books here on many occasions but have not felt I had the technical competence in those fields to contribute anything back -- and so would not count as part of the local community, but with (at last count) 21 other Support votes, one abstention, and one Oppose vote (by a user who was neither logged in nor appeared to have made any other edits to any Wikimedia project), it seems clear that there's consensus in the community. As for the second half of that policy, ultimately it's up to whoever's granting the bits how they interpret it; in my opinion my participation in other projects should enfranchise me, even though I only use Wikibooks, and haven't yet contributed to it specifically. That being said, since it is open to varying interpretation, garnering 4-6 more Support votes isn't a bad idea... TwelveBaud (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, the above concerns have usually been responded to in the past by pointing out that decisions are made by building consensus through discussion because we don't vote, we discuss points and compromise because the quality of arguments are what matter not the quantity of arguments, and we assume anyone who voices an opinion is doing so in good faith because we were all new once and we want everyone to feel welcome and part of the community. See Decision making, Please do not bite the newcomers, and Assume good faith. Hence, Wikibooks actually does have these issues addressed already. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  21:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a watchlist notice be more appropriate than a site-notice (for everyone, including logged-out users)? Cheers. Aude (discuss • contribs) 04:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always been a site notice here. Last time we had this (a 'crat election I believe in that case) some editors objected to the absence of the site notice. As 99% of editors work on one book only (and they are the only editor of that book) I expect the watchlist isn't used much and that was the rationale, but I wasn't here when the custom and practice was established so I don't know. However, as more than one person has "complained" I've moved it to the Watchlist notice. Thanks <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 08:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the sitenotice caused the accumulation of votes here to stop dead like a switch had been turned off; the watchlist notice just isn't effective. If people realize this isn't over, we can likely garner the remaining maybe two or three votes we need in reasonably short order.  So I've restored the sitenotice.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)