Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Koavf for checkuser

[edit]

Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Koavf as a local English Wiktionary CheckUser. We need a second active CheckUser so that User:TheDaveRoss can regain his powers (per WMF policy, at least two need to be active or the remaining one gets suspended). He is a CheckUser at Wikispecies, so he is already vetted by WMF and knows how the tools work. Additionally, I think there is a benefit in having a non-admin who is nevertheless a longtime trusted editor have this right.

Schedule:

Acceptance: Accepted, thank you. Please let me know any questions or concerns you have. Note that I already have these rights on Wikispecies and have used them (in addition to non-WMF wikis like WikiIndex). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Regardless of admin status, we need a second active checkuser. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support conditional on admin status, since it seems impossible to effectively be a checkuser without also being an admin. DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DTLHS: I urge you to reconsider that conditionality. Even if you believe that to be the case, this vote enables TheDaveRoss to regain his checkuser status. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If we only have one effective checkuser then we're subverting the rule to require at least two. We should either have two useful checkusers or none. DTLHS (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, I can't see why not. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Justin has been around for a long time, and is definitely very nice and trustworthy. I don't even see why he's not an admin yet! PseudoSkull (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose. Nothing personal, I just think there are much better candidates for checkuser status who are long-time admins here at Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 16:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikitiki89: Then make a vote and nominate one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like being in position to pick any single editor, but my top choices would probably be User:Stephen G. Brown, User:SemperBlotto, User:-sche, and User:Angr. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest whatsoever in being a checkuser. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes you all the more a better candidate. --WikiTiki89 18:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: Per Wikitiki89. --Victar (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: Bad judgement. --Vahag (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: per Vahagn diff —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain per Wikitiki, but I don't actually oppose Koavf becoming checkuser. Maybe I'll change my vote to support after I've thought about it more. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

Fails 4–5–1. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf_for_checkuser&oldid=47463414"