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

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

User:Koavf for checkuser

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)

Support

  1. Support as nom. Regardless of admin status, we need a second active checkuser. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  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)
    @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)
    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)
  3. Support, I can't see why not. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  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)

Oppose

  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)
    @Wikitiki89: Then make a vote and nominate one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    I have no interest whatsoever in being a checkuser. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    That makes you all the more a better candidate. --WikiTiki89 18:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Per Wikitiki89. --Victar (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: Bad judgement. --Vahag (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: per Vahagn diff —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  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)

Decision

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

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia