Meta:Requests for checkuser/Teles

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

Teles

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

Hi, all. I would like to help as a checkuser here on Meta. I have been dealing with the tool since 2009 on Portuguese Wikipedia where I am still a checkuser. I use the tool in a daily basis as a Steward dealing with spambots most of the times, but here on Meta, all I can do is blocking accounts I find. I also help a little on Commons reporting socks that I identify from editing pattern. Specially for dealing with spambots, I can give a hand to current checkusers now that Meta lost four checkusers since June and nobody replaced them yet. I believe that there may be room for more people to help out if everybody agree, including current checkusers. Thanks for your participation.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 08:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rs chen 7754 08:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Glaisher [talk] 08:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: we have not "lost" for checkusers, we still have 5 as we did some time ago. As usual, I'd like some comment from current CheckUsers on the workload to understand if a new one is needed. --Nemo 10:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit of a tangent, but providing statistics for CU/OS use like other wikis do would be helpful. --Rs chen 7754 10:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some stats - I hope there aren't any errors. -Barras talk 13:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can check the end of this diff and you will see that, yes, we lost four checkusers since June (Herbythyme, Magister Mathematicae, MarcoAurelio, Pathoschild). That's what I said above.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 01:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I just added MM to the stats, forgot him as he wasn't really active. -Barras talk 09:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (edit conflicted) Very good idea, trusted and active user and some help in our CU team at meta would surely be good especially since Herby and MA left, two very active CUs. A good candidate, imo. There is more than enough work to do here. -Barras talk 10:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very helpful user, already experienced with the tool. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{neutral}}~~ Agreed help is needed; not sure Teles is the right candidate as his last 50 edits go back a month and his block log to March. Trijnstel_talk 15:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trijnstel, I don't think that it says too much. For example, from this criteria, your block log is not higher than mine, though we all know that you are more active and a good name for the tool. Pick a name of an user that has more than 50 edits this month. It is very unlikely that these edits are related with CU tool. Anyway, I won't argue that much. You know me enough to make a decision I guess and I don't intend to prolong any discussion about it.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only block spambots when they already spammed or when I can confirm them on other projects via CU. That's why my local block log isn't very long. Also I multilock spambots (sometimes more than 50 at once) and I don't check them manually one by one if they also edit meta. On Commons I CU the obvious patterns first before blocking them, which I can't (yet) do on meta of course. I reported the spambots multiple times on RfCU before, but the local checkusers asked me to leave them for them so I did. Meta needs people who frequently check the pattern accounts and I'm not sure you'll do that, but alright then, I'll change it to a Support. Trijnstel_talk 11:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For the same reason like Trijnstel. I would also prefer a user who is more active in countervandalism here, anyway. Vogone talk 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I trust Teles to use this tool appropiately. Sa vh ^ñ 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 06:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Defender (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Experienced CU, good to work with. INeverCry 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very experienced with the CU tool. LlamaAl (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moral support if my vote doesn´t count. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds good Elfix 22:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
& Teles has been very active as a steward lately, especially in covering the notoriously under-patrolled part of the day that is the european night. I think his timezone would make for a great addition in coverage of the Meta checkuser team. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok --MF-W 22:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Érico Wouters ^msg 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support experienced and trusted --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 16:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 18:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Successful - 25 supports are reached, one neutral vote. Pretty clear result. -Barras talk 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]