Project:Requests/User rights/Saper

User:Saper
I am a MediaWiki developer (Gerrit, SVN) and a checkuser on Polish Wikipedia and as such I have identified myself to the Foundation. I would like to get a checkuser bit here to do the regular cross-wiki work (as handled currently by stewards) but also - as I am submitting patches for the Extension:CheckUser to check for various peculiarities of the behaviour of CheckUser software. For example, I am active in fixing bug:34838 that already got fixed in 3 extensions. MediaWiki wiki is a special case, since it is usually upgraded first and has different set of extensions enabled. Unfortunately, access to test wikis does not reveal complexity of issues seen in production, as well as I understand reluctance of stewards/checkusers to reveal private data to someone who is doing development as an external volunteer. « Saper // talk » 14:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, according to Meta's policy, we need at least a few other local CheckUsers as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch. That would also mean, per Meta policy, that stewards shouldn't do checks here anymore. I think this should not be the case (I think there are only cross-wiki related checks here). What about having a project-specific policy here, saying, that current stewards serve as local checkusers as well, as before? « Saper // talk »  17:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've started an RFC on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do, mediawiki.org is one of the main targets of xrumer spambots and it's crucial for us (stewards) to be able to check them on sight. I have no concerns about local checkusers on this wiki but please allow us to go on fighting spam. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in this request other than that there needs to be more than 1 checkuser, so maybe Vituzzu wants to be local permanent CU as well? Petrb (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Saper is suitable for this kind of work (even if it seems he hasn't been so active lately), I think another local CheckUser available could be a good idea even so. For instance someone that's both active and trusted (Krenair or Petrb, IMHO) could become a CU.-- Frigotoni ... i'm here ;  12:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really know if I am a best candidate since I am pretty busy with development and labs, but if there were no other candidates, thus Saper couldn't become a CU at all, I could probably volunteer and hold the bit until any other, better CU candidate would request the bit. The reason why there must be at least 2 CU's is that they need to control each other if they aren't misusing the tool. This is probably something I would have a time for, but I would prefer if someone else, more suitable would request it. Petrb (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)