Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2019

Checkuser?

Hi 4nn1l2. I see Jameslwoodward is in the list, but besides admin and bureaucrat he's also a checkuser. Will he lose that access as well or will he keep it? Personally I think he will keep it as Commons:Checkusers doesn't mention an inactivity policy, apart from the very strict policy on Meta. Though, it might sound strange that someone who is inactive enough to lose their admin and crat rights, could keep one of the most sensitive rights... Trijnstel_talk 18:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say without the admin flag you cannot fulfill the CU rule anyway, as you need access to deleted contributions to make a call if a check is justified, so losing CU will be the most straightforward consequence. --Krd 18:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's technically feasible and not against policy, we should bring this to the community's attention and let them decide. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with Krd ("without the admin flag you cannot fulfill the CU rule ") Although the inability to see deleted contribs may limit the ability to work some cases, it would not prevent all, and there would still be a useful role that could be played. It would be tantamount to an OTRS agent who is not an admin, of which we've many. Эlcobbola _talk 16:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trijnstel. Personally, I agree with Krd, but if a community discussion is needed as mentioned by Magog the Ogre, I will open a thread at VPP. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: So far, all CUs on Commons have opined about this issue, except you and Jameslwoodward who is absent and the subject of thread. It would be good to know your opinion about this too. Thank you! 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The way the policy is written "thus checkusers are usually administrators" I don't see a requirement for a CU to be an admin. Compare to COM:OS: "Oversighters are administrators with the technical ability ..." I would agree that the policy should be changed to allow for removal of CU for inactivity though. --Rschen7754 05:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Why don't you ask Jim first? Yann (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ask Jim what? --Krd 11:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: , you pinged me at 03:59, 11 February 2019, less than eight hours after this thread was started (18:31, 10 February 2019), and on a weekend - which I clearly note is a time I'm not active. What, precisely, is the hurry? Jim has, in fact, now responded here, less than a day after the start of the thread (!!!) Эlcobbola _talk 16:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I just asked your opinion as a courtesy, because I saw that the three other people who had participated in the discussion were CUs. I didn't know Jameslwoodward was a CU and I didn't know the list of CUs on Commons until the start of this thread. The issue was brought to my attention only because of this thread. There is absolutely no hurry, and you can ignore my pings or leave my questions unanswered. Yes, Jameslwoodward has fortunately responded here, but the more general question is not moot: Can CUs be non-admins? Does the policy need an amendment? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, all. I have had a lot going on in my life, hence the inactivity here, but I will certainly return to Commons sometime. I will, in the next day or two, fulfill the requirements for keeping my Admin rights, so the issue raised above will be moot. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I could find 5 copyvios in 5 minutes.. or less. If you don't have 5 minutes for the next day or two, perhaps it's better to give up the admin bit and re-request it when you have more time in your life for Commons. If you leave on good terms, that shouldn't be a problem. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Alexis Jazz, the issue was not the few minutes necessary to make five deletions (which I have done), but the more than 30 alerts and talk page items that had piled up. I felt that if I was going to return to Commons, I would have to deal with all of those promptly in one way or another.

As for the issue raised here, (which is now moot), I agree with Krd. Elcobbola's point about OTRS agents is valid, but the work is different. You can read OTRS messages and act on them without having to look at deleted files. As Krd says, most checkuser work will require looking at everything that an alleged bad actor has done and you wont know that until you have gotten into the case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Info Considering the comments of User:Krd and User:Jameslwoodward, I opened a thread about this issue at Commons talk:Checkusers#Checkusers should be administrator. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)