Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Wur-dene

+CheckUser
I know this user from Wikipedia (where he's under another name!), where he's a good contributor and fights vandals. As he said on Whiteknight's talk page, he's a computer technician - and he has access to confidential data - like CheckUser deals with. CheckUser Policy provides more information about the function.

I think he'd be an asset to the team here, using CU when it's needed. --Swyllutut 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - I'm not even sure if this is a sincere nomination. Needs a lot more activity here. -within focus 22:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For some reason, alot of vandalism surrounds this user, and he isn't particularly active either. I doubt this is sincere, and the user who made the nomination appears to have created an account simply for the purposes of submitting this RFA. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - I am not familiar at all with this user and just because he has been active on Wikipedia does not imply anything with regards to activity on Wikibooks. There are plenty of people here on Wikibooks that have the technical expertise necessary to do the interpretations found with checkuser scans.  Besides, I don't think it is as big of a deal to do the interpretation as is made out on the meta Checkuser page.  I also believe you ought to have the same equivalent level of trust to become a bureaucrat if you want to have this option turned on.  --Rob Horning 09:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Inactive, very low edit count. Gerard Foley 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose How do you know its the same user on Wikipedia? It could possibly be an imposter, users should have much more activity in order to prove their trusted enough, you can't just go for adminship if your good on wikipedia  M in un  ''Spiderman 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Denied. There is community concensus against this action. Some of the reasons listed are that this user is not particularly active here at wikibooks, and that this nomination appears to not even be sincere. I will archive this discussion in about a week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)