Meta:Requests for checkuser/Quentinv57

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

Quentinv57

• Quentinv57 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hello everybody. I'm requesting today the local CheckUser status at meta, because I'm more and more implicated in spammers / spambots affairs (most of them are on meta, en* projects and mediawiki) and I always prefer to check the new series before locking, to be sure that it's part of our spambot and that I'm not going to lock an innocent.

Moreover, I've seen Snowolf saying one month ago that "we need active CUs, present on IRC when needed for quick checks". As I'm most of the time available at IRC, I think that it could help when none of the current checkusers using IRC are connected and a quick check is needed.

Thanks for your consideration. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Votes

1. My statement was not very well worded, I meant to imply that if there's any need, it's for active CU, tho meta might be well covered by CU already. In any case, while there might be no immediate need, I also never feel there's "too many CUs" pretty much, so I'm going with a support here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
2.  weak oppose Don't get me wrong, I certainly like you, but to be honest I don't think we need more meta CUs. Moreover we already have a lot of spam/proxy experts on meta who have CU rights and we have enough active CUs (both on IRC and on CU-L). Besides it's just a few days since you're back after a long break and personally I don't think you're the "right guy" to have CU rights here. I do trust you btw - that's not an issue here - and I appreciate all the work you do as a steward and otherwise. Trijnstel_talk 15:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
3.  Support Despite agreeing with Trijnstel in some ways, I still think you are trustworthy enough to have the right--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. I don't see how having more active, trusted users with this flag would cause any harm. Seems to me that it could only possibly help speed up reactions to some situations, and that makes it worth having more. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
5.  Oppose. Sorry but there's absolutely no need for more CheckUsers at meta. CU is not just about fastness, is about using it when there's a need to use it. In the most urgent cases —and after some years as CU here I've only seen a couple— a steward can simply run a check here. The world isn't going to stop for that. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
6.  Support I see no problem in having one extra CU. Trusted user. --Meno25 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
7.  Support I see no problem too. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
8.  Support Why yes? Because he's trusted and good user. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
9.  Support per Snowolf and Meno25. Quentin is an active and trusted user and I don't see why I shouldn't support him. micki 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
10.  Support. No doubt Quentin is trusted and also more than capable to do the job here. More CU does not harm. Sure he was busy in real life for only some time, but he was very active before that and even now, he is one of the most active stewards around. Therefore he has my absolute support. — T. 10:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
11.  Support, trusted, doesn't harm, so why not? - Hoo man (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
12.  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
13.  weak oppose I've thought about this quite a bit and in the end I do not agree that we might create an unlimited number of CUs on a project simply because someone wanted the rights. This project is adequately covered with CUs at present and almost all of them are regularly active - I doubt there would be much in the way of delays for requests if any. I must stress this is not about my trust of this user nor does it diminish my appreciation for the excellent work they do as a steward. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
14.  Support Why not? He is serious.--Morphypnos (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Usually I'm one of the people who vote early, however this here wasn't that easy to decide. We are currently pretty good covered with CUs on meta. I also have to agree with what Trijnstel said above, you just came back from a break. In my opinion, it is never a good idea to ask for more rights just after a break. Most of the time, CU requests to us are pretty quick done and I can't think of any big delay, and even then, if it is absolutely needed, a steward could run a check here as well. We surely won't kill them for that. At this point, I will go with an oppose here. -Barras talk 12:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Mild support and very mild, while I'm happy to mint admins and crats as qualified people ask, minting CU's, IMO, should only be done if there is a need for them, and I can't see there actually is mich now. That said, nothing at all against the candidate, and as he's already a steward, an appointment here is largely harmless, as he already has access to checkuser-l and the wiki. On balance, I wouldn't have encouraged anyone to ask for CU rights on Meta now, but since we're here, can't bring myself to oppose. Courcelles 05:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Support I see no issues as he is currently quite active. Savh^ñ 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not a clear cut here, and per policy didn't reach at least 25-30 editors' approval, so closing as Not done. Matanya (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)