Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for checkuser/Johannnes89

< Meta:Requests for checkuser

Johannnes89

edit

Not ending before 9 March 2025 06:59 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Johannes, steward and admin on metawiki & dewiki. I mainly work in fighting crosswiki spam and LTA. Usually LWCU is sufficient for that purpose (see my stats for the past months [1]), but when spammers / LTA use sleeper accounts, LWCU is not possible, as it only shows registration data and (just like regular CU) only for the last 90 days. Hence the ability to do local checks via metawiki would be helpful. This would also allow detecting sockpuppets more effectively for LTAs known to switch proxy IPs after registering. I'm also happy to assist at Meta:Requests for CheckUser information, although there are just a few requests per year. Thanks for your consideration and your feedback! --Johannnes89 (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1.   Support--Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 07:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support, no brainer. aqurs ❄️ 07:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support sure! --Wüstenspringmaus talk 07:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Strong support One of the easiest strong supports I can make. //shb (t • c) 07:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support. Svārtava (tɕ) 08:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Arcticocean ■ 08:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support with frustration, because this is something that Meta:MSR should be explicitly allowing instead of having stewards apply for local CU here. But that isn't Johannes' problem. Leaderboard (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Communicating with local CUs for data is not that difficult in meta. It done that way in all other wikis with local CUs. BRP ever 10:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but stewards are unique in that they often need to work with CU data in multiple forms. Half of the stewards have admin/CU/OS just because of how restrictive MSR is. Leaderboard (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How it is interpreted. The intention between MSR was a completely different one when it was created. Some individual changes[2][3][4] (reflecting common practice) have turned MSR into something counterproductive. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support AramilFeraxa (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --M/ (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support and disagree with Leaderboard about MSR --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support sure! --TenWhile6 13:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support sounds good. Ternera (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. --Stïnger （会話） 13:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  15.   Support until we have a proper global checkuser, Meta checkuser is the next best thing for stewards. No concerns with the candidate or rationale for the access. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but Ajraddatz, did you really meant „Meta adminship“? TenWhile6 07:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume a freudian slip for checkuser? //shb (t • c) 07:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed. Corrected. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Sure. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 20:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Thanks for volunteering! --Superpes15 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support See my comment on MSR above. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_checkuser/Johannnes89&oldid=28336969"