Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2014-11/User:Liliana-60 for checkuser

Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Liliana-60 as a local English Wiktionary CheckUser. I believe the user has the necessary experience as a sysop to be an effective CheckUser. I also believe more CheckUsers are needed, as the current three are inactive for extended periods. Purple backpack89 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: Yeah, sure. Given that our current checkusers are all inactive, we desperately need one to deal with the open requests on WT:CU. -- Liliana • 23:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom Purple backpack89 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need more CheckUsers, and Liliana seems like a fairly logical choice, and a sound, responsible sysop who has dealt well with things in the past. (And I certainly don't want the job (and am not active enough for it anyway).) --Neskaya _sprecan? 00:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Edits like Special:Diff/24561442 make me doubt this user would use the tool responsibly. — Keφr 06:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, one who handles potentially private information should not be engaging in long-standing feuds with other major editors. Wyang (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bullying, hostility, irrelevant political references. I am worried if a person with such attitudes to other editors becomes a CheckUser. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liliana has done a lot of good work for this project, but I have to oppose making her a checkuser, for the reasons Wyang gave. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the comment that Keφr dug up (which I was thinking of as soon as I saw this vote, anyway). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 4–5–0. — Keφr 18:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contents