Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Faendalimas (CU)

Faendalimas
I would like to nominate Faendalimas for the position of CU. --mikeu talk 02:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I accept the nomination for CheckUser here and publicly note that I am already a CheckUser on Wikispecies verify and have signed the Access to Private Information Policy on Meta diff. Thank you Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 02:39, 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) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The benefits of local Checkusers is that we have the means to determine and act on issues arrising from sockpuppetry here within our community. As the checkusers are also sysops and editors here we are aware of user norms pertinent to this wiki and hence will see more clearly any departures from this. In general I have found that because of this when issues come up the checkusers are among the first to also see it and once the request is made we can act on it quickly. We are also more familiar with the regular users and other sysops here so actually know whoever is making the request. This does help in the assessment of what actions to take. We also can foresee potential socks as these are often users who have been previously blocked and so have local knowledge of this to help head off potential problems. All CheckUsers across all wikis are also in contact with each other, we have our own private wiki where information on major problem and well known socks is stored, if any of these users appear on Wikiversity we will see this immediately. The reverse is also true in that we can ask other CheckUsers to check for global cross wiki issues on their wikis to check for cross wiki patterns of behavior. In these types of cases Global Blocks and Locks can be requested including, if necessary, IP range blocks.
 * The main risks are similar to any advanced right in that security of accounts is important, as it is not good for a CheckUser account to be hacked. They can obtain private information. Clearly it is also a set of tools that must be used only under strict policy guidelines and must not be used for any reason other than a formal request per policy. Nothing a CheckUser can do is by accident, they are a set of tools that that only deliberate intent to find out this information will work, so there is no risk of accidentally finding out information by pressing the wrong button. The rules on there being 2 checkusers is important as there must be oversight and we also always work in conjunction with the other sysops of the Wiki. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 16:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you comment on your low edit count here on Wikiversity and why your contributions of only 200 edits should not be an obstacle to climb over when deciding to support your request? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thank you for the question. I have only recently begun editing on Wikiversity largely because I joined the Editorial Board of the Wikijournal of Science. I have largely edited on EN:WP, Wikispecies and Wikidata. However am beginning to make some editorial contributions here. I felt a major way I could contribute to this wiki was in the area of policy and administration. This generally will not get my edit count up on Wikiversity but I offered to help and have over 10 years of experience on Wikipedia and Wikispecies. Although I do not spend a lot of time editing, particularly at the moment as I am traveling in the USA right now, I am online everyday for 3-4 hours across several stints which I am sharing between Wikispecies and Wikiversity. I use this time to largely do administrative actions where I see need and develop policies. I do have a low edit count on Wikiversity, and like my Custodianship election I am being largely assessed based on my global wiki experience rather than my local editing. This is fair enough and am happy to answer any questions on this. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 16:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * as nom. I wholeheartedly have nomintated Faendalimas for the positon of CU here. Please see statement here. --mikeu talk 02:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - A trusted global user with a clear explanation of how adding this local ability enhances Wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Faendalimas has been and will be an effective CheckUser. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure. Hasley 13:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , experiences as CU on wiki species are also welcome as Wikiversity. --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * --User RAYLEIGH22I whole-heartedly support Faendalimas for the position of CU on the strength of the many recommendations listed above from those who have helped me in the past and without whose help I would not have been able to continue. 14:06 4 December 2019 RAYLEIGH22 (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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) 22:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Masumrezarock100 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A good CheckUser need a good knowledge of the project and his community. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 14:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * solely on the basis that the oppose reasons make no sense. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 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 03:19, 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 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)