Meta:Requests for checkuser/Avraham

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Avraham[edit]

Avraham (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Hopefully, I am known to many of you through my work on Meta as a steward, an admin, and an active metapedian. At this time, am requesting permission to obtain native access to the checkuser tool on Meta. I do not believe that there is a pressing need for a new checkuser on Meta to relieve backlog. However, as a steward and a native checkuser on the Wikimedia project which attracts the most vandals, I have found that there are times when it would be helpful to follow a cross-wiki vandal to Meta. Despite having technical access a steward, since there is a robust checkuser corps here already, outside of emergencies I have refrained from checking here on Meta. I believe that native checkuser access would help my cross-wiki activities. Should metapedians allow me to have native access, I will monitor requests for checkuser here, but I must say up front that I will probably not be as active as some of our other local checkusers. Either way, thank you for your consideration. -- Avi (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rs chen 7754 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, whilst you are currently quite helpful and your CU access on enwiki is an asset, I personally don't have the impression you have been that active on meta in the past moths. Whilst there has been a recent boom in your activity, you have only done 5 edits in December, 28 in November, 13 in October and none in September last year. Whilst this activity is not extremely low, I personally feel that CU should be granted to more active users. Six local blocks isn't that much either. Sa vh ^ñ 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good to see you return to some activity here however 500 edits takes us back over 18 months and generally activity has mostly occurred around the time of confirmation each year. Stick around consistently and you would be a reasonable candidate --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Herby. I understand this is a convenience request. I am asking for this to make my cross-wiki activity easier, as Meta itself isn't suffering from a backlog right now (as you know better than most). When following vandals cross wiki (usually from EnWiki) I'd like to continue checking on Meta, as in my experience many vandals make their next stop Meta or come to EnWiki from Meta, and there can be more IPs/sleepers/evidence uncovered when checking both. Thanks -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respect you but you picked the wrong person to talk to about "convenience requests" I'm afraid. My views are long held and well known. Tools are for people who use them to benefit the community they are actively involved in - no more, no less. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Au contraire, Herby. I know your philosophy; how many years have we been interacting on Wikimedia projects now? You are remarkably and refreshingly consistent. (Similarly, I am expecting JayHenry, G-d bless him, to oppose on "hat collecting" principles). My point is to be as upfront and honest with my fellow metapedians as I can. I do not want people to think I am insincerely offering to help out here just to get access or another "badge". The reasons why I believe metapedians who are uncertain may choose to honor my request are:
      1. Meta is unique in that it is not only a project in and of itself, but it is the project which serves to co-ordinate other projects, especially small ones, as such, meta is almost always the second stop for vandals (if not their first).
      2. Meta is not covered by global blocks, and so many vandals will come to Meta when stymied on their home wikis
      3. Stewards support all projects, especially the smaller ones, with checkuser, and following a vandal from zhwiki to meta is to be expected
      4. I am not asking for an authority or access level that I do not already have. I am asking the meta community for the permission to use it when following trails from and to elsewhere.
    - The above is why I believe having the permission is helpful. I would obviously monitor the Meta CU page, but my goal is not to directly support Meta the project, but Wikimedia the projects through Meta, and while I hope the meta community will honor this somewhat non-standard request, I understand that many may think as you, and respect that. Thank you for taking the time to explain; as usual, Herby, you are an asset to Wikimedia as a whole . -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously I know the role of meta, but I agree with Herby & Savh. Plus we really don't need more checkusers at the moment. Trijnstel_talk 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trijnstel--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another steward and xwiki CU here isn't going to do any harm, and potentially a good deal of good. Courcelles 06:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Courcelles Vogone talk 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing personal, just we don't need more CUs a×p_de ^Hello! 19:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I have no concerns about not needing more checkusers, as I feel more checkusers is not a bad thing, I do not think it a good idea to place another role on the shoulders of those who already have a lot of them and only maintain moderate levels of activity in them. Simply put, there's no real pressing need, and I'd rather have highly active users who do not have to share their limited time between so many roles already. Honestly meta has had enough checkusers to handle normal requests for quite some time, more checkusers (in my personal view) are still not a bad thing but only if it's people that have high levels of availability thru IRC. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of my thought process: I am not comfortable supporting merely on the notion of extending the user's intent to extend his checks from the English Wikipedia or from his steward work. That is merely my personal opinion, and so I have analyzed this request for the portion of it that concerns normal checkuser activity here and that is what my reasoning about refers to. This has nothing to do with Avi's qualifications as a checkuser, which are of course excellent. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for clarifying, Snowolf; I appreciate it! -- Avi (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --cyrfaw (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After more than the preceptive 7 days that requests shall be kept open at Meta-Wiki (this one is 12 days old), this request does not meet the requirements outlined at CheckUser policy to gain access to this tool. As such I am closing this request as unsuccessful. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]