Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Koavf (CU)

Koavf

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Koavf (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

I would like to nominate Koavf for the position of CU. --mikeu ^talk 08:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions

• What are the benefits and risks of having local CheckUsers? How will you work to enhance these benefits and limit the risks? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Support as nom. I wholeheartedly have nomintated Koavf for the positon of CU here. See also [1] --mikeu ^talk 08:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support sensible user. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per above. —Hasley 15:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support experienced and trusted global user with experience with these tools. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, Koavf has been and will be an effective CheckUser. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support full support for CU. --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 21:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose expansion of CheckUser permission to projects where stewards are perfectly capable of handling the needed checks on their own. Nothing against the candidate, but as an anglophone, I don't like unneeded expansion on projects that I might one day use. TonyBallioni (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Masumrezarock100 (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Indeed these measures are needed --Gorlapraveen123 (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral but would likely be an oppose if I had more edits here. Nothing against the candidate, but I worry it might not be used much and I also worry about the relative instability of the admin community in recent years. --Rschen7754 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the need demonstrated by this community for the right to be allocated; I also don't see that level of activity by the nominee at this community. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support From my limited discussions, etc. involving Koavf, this user has been helpful (as far as I can remember) and seems like a good candidate for checkuser. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Koavf's account was compromised a year ago and his account with CheckUser rights on Wikispecies led to 5 CheckUsers queries being performed by an unauthorized party. As far as I know, to this day, Koavf has not responded to the questions raised nor provided any explanation. I do not appreciate his tone-deafness approach to that issue given that CheckUser has access to users' IP address. Therefore I have grave concerns over his Checkuser nominations on this project. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For now; no answer supplied to the question and no statement of support provided (have I missed something?). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 03:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Outcome

• We haven't established how long CU requests should remain open. I suggest that, barring a large influx of new discussion, this be closed around January 26 (2 months after opening). Thoughts? --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving this open for an extended time. Given that the requirement is such a high bar I think this should stay open for a while. --mikeu ^talk 03:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this as: we're not ready. We just don't have a large enough active community to reach the rather high criteria to achieve consensus in a reasonable time span. No prejudice against a future nomination. Thank you for offering to assist with this. We greatly appreciate your contributions. --mikeu ^talk 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)