Meta:Requests for checkuser/Drini

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

Drini[edit]

(RfP closes when 25 supports are reached)

Well, given the recent talk about separation of meta/steward accesses, I'd like to request CU access locally. I'm usually dealing with crosswiki vandalism and stuff so I ocassionally need to run checks here, but I don't want to do them "as steward". I already know the techcnical details of the tool use (as I'm a CU on spanish wikipedia), I'm already subscribed to the checkuser mailing list, so I consider myself responsible enough for using the tool here. drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no problem with Drini having CU on Meta. Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yup. --Az1568 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M/ 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. --Meno25 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Majorly (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drini's daylog is a resource used by many already. He knows what he's doing. Local access seems a very good idea. Support ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A. B. ^(talk) 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sure, lets make already so powerful Drini, God-like. :P ..--Comet styles 08:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support --Thogo (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support of course —DerHexer (Talk) 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In practice Meta does not need further Checkusers. It is a small wiki and there is little to do. I have reservations over Drini in terms of communication, however I do trust Drini and have considerable respect for the work he does so I will Support this --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy.  16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this approach to obtain tools for use on meta in addition to steward access/privileges. I think clarifying the separation upfront is a good idea. I trust Drini and his work in multiple Foundation projects and feel that he will use the tools appropriately here. FloNight 16:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agüeybaná (hábleme) 16:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kronin▄¦▀ 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacob 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 10:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support He'd give a hand and known as capable. Why not? Also as for the number of users who obtain this access, substantially he can give it anytime he think he should already, so this RfCU rather makes things more clear and formalize. --Aphaia 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely - Alison ^❤ 05:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep.--Phoenix -wiki 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed and flag granted. Congrats!--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]