Meta:Requests for checkuser/Pathoschild

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

Pathoschild edit

I request checkuser access on Meta so that I may legitimately check users on Meta and have access to the checkuser logs. I have been a steward since December 2006, and regularly use checkuser access on Meta and elsewhere in response to requests for CheckUser information. See a few example requests: "Meta", "cross wiki spam", "En Wikiquote", and "Cornish Wiktionary".

(The list of checkusers is misleading; all Meta checkusers are stewards or ombudsmen who assigned themselves rights for access to the logs. However, I would like to have elected access.) —{admin} Pathoschild 16:07:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support --Dbl2010 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pathosupport.--Shanel 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --.anaconda 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Thogo (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A. B. ^(talk) 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as clearly trustworthy and plainly competent (and with appreciation for his pursuing elected, as against self-conferred, access). Joe 18:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No duh support. Cbrown1023 talk 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with stewards giving themselves extra buttons on any project they want, but if Pathoschild would rather go through the community, I not only support his request, but also the value he places on the community opinion of his merits as a potential checkuser Gaillimh 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Az1568 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sean William 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Fabexplosive 20:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M/ 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jose77 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a hardworking Meta admin, and steward. Top editor. Majorly (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It makes a lot of sense to have you have checkuser, and I hope you soon get it on wikisource as well. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good, hard-working admin, and indeed a steward Brian ^{Wikinews / Talk} 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical question: if a project has CU locally, it must be at least 2 people. I've always appreciated Pathoschild's hardworking including CU, and happy to assure he helped it out properly. However I'm not sure the logic which validates this request and community approval; we have stewards around and they have log access, but it can be applied to other wikis? --Aphaia 07:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To see the checkuser log, one needs to have checkuser status on any wiki: the CU log is global (i.e. checkusers on ja:wp can see in the log if someone checks IPs on meta, for instance). Pathoschild's request is partly to be able to access the log without giving himself temporary CU tools on a wiki. guillom 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your comment, I know the log is global (and anyone can see). My concern is if it is a bad example for other projects if meta has only one CU; it could be justified other projects who couldn't have two CUs required, if we have no amendment or logic of justification.--Aphaia 09:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok sorry for misunderstanding. Though, I can hardly see how meta could be considered as a project with only one CU, since there are many others. guillom 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meta has de facto many other CUs, but none was elected as is. They use it as steward, not as local CU. That is why I think this request somehow pointless; if it is meaningful, would it also make other de facto CU-ship void? Policy says steward only perform CU when the project has no local CU, as far as I understand. And as I pointed out, it can also be applied for other project where steward can have CU access. --Aphaia 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as a comment, and perhaps we need to discuss this further elsewhere if needed, but I'm assuming Pathoschild's intent on standing was to get explicit approval from the community and only that, but not to in any way suggest that our other CUs, which hold the role by virtue of being steward or ombudsman, should lose that access because Pathy was explicitly confirmed. I can't speak for others but I trust every single one of those other users to be a CU and would vote to confirm them in the role explicitly... but I hope that would not be needed. (I suspect most everyone else on this list supporting Pathoschild feels the same way). ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly; I don't suggest the removal of checkuser access from those who need access to the logs. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Support Now potential obstacles are removed, see the section below. <g> --Aphaia
Obvious support, as the one who suggested him to request for the CU tools on meta :) guillom 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as someone who has been asking Pathoschild to run CU for me how could I do otherwise! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ElinorD 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, goes the extra mile which may make all the difference. --Azdiyy 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Afinogenoff 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, absolutely no problems here. --Coredesat (en.wp) 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brownout^(msg) 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Steel ^en:Steel 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarah Ewart 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no-brainer. JzG 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marbot 19:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. xaosflux ^Talk 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support NoSeptember 12:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confidently Support - Tangotango 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jon Harald Søby 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]