Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Gmaxwell (de-checkuser)

Gmaxwell (de-checkuser)

Remove = 26; Keep = 1; Neutral = 0 – 96%. Result: Remove. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Gmaxwell (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 19:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear community,
following the most recent adminiship inactivity run, during which Gmaxwell (talk · contribs) had his adminship privileges revoked as a result of inactivity, I would also like to suggest the removal of his CheckUser access on this wiki.

Gmaxwell was elected a Commons CheckUser in March 2007 (see his original RfCU) but according to our own CheckUser activity statistics, hasn't performed a CheckUser action for more than one year — indeed, according to his fellow CheckUser, his last action was performed non October 14, 2013.

The global CheckUser policy states that users not active for a year will have their CheckUser access revoked; unfortunately, Wikimedia stewards have chosen to interpret the policy as referring to a total inactivity rather than an inactivity as a CheckUser — meaning the use of the CheckUser tool — and have refused to remove Gmaxwell's CheckUser privileges on this wiki.

Given that refusal, and given that Gmaxwell's lack of administrator access makes it rather impossible for him to make effective use of his CheckUser access, and given his inactivity for more than a year, I propose that the Commons community vote on revoking his privileges. I would also like to suggest that this vote take two weeks, just as all requests for CheckUser access do.

Thank you for your time, odder (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Remove as initiator. odder (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - JurgenNL (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nominator (Odder). We do not need in-active CUUs. Josve05a (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - His silence is what bothers me the most. Natuur12 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Mike V • Talk 20:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - btw, the CU policy isn't clear regarding inactivity, which is why the stewards interpret it as total inactivity. Trijnstel_talk 20:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove With thanks for years of good work. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per above. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stewards should decide this. They should have a vote on Meta, based on their own individual interpretations of policy... INeverCry 21:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get this opinion. Stewards never decide. They implement community consensus. The CU policy wasn't clear about inactivity (and yes, I agree the policy should be clarified but that's not something the stewards should decide on their own) so they adviced to go back to the community. What's wrong with that? Trijnstel_talk 21:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless I am much mistaken, @INC's vote is sarcastic. odder (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Likely, but obviously a de-RFCU is not the place for sarcastic comments. Trijnstel_talk 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, not out of missing trust, but as having longterm-inactive CUs doesn't make sense. With thanks for the earlier work. --Túrelio (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per above. Rzuwig^► 22:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. --Alan ^(talk) 22:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. Thanks for your good work. Yann (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom --Krd 09:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Tool should be used not "rusts". --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I personally think, that inactivity is not a reason to take away buttons, but as he is not an administrator any more, there is not much, what he can do, so ... as proverb says: if the drum has gone, let the drumsticks also go. Taivo (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per inactivity. Thanks for your service! -FASTILY 02:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above and clear inactivity. CT Cooper · talk 03:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 08:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CheckUser inactivity should be inactivity as a CU, not complete inactive. — revi_msg 08:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sorry for piling on here but as per basically all the above russavia (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Checkuser status is limited to a certain number of users. We should be thankful for Gmaxwell for offering help on the past, but if he is not willing to use it anymore for any reason, it is nice to leave the spot for another one. About interpretation of policy, we on Commons may create a local discussion and define our own criteria for inactivity as long as it do not get in conflict with global policy.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 19:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Info The idea of removing Gmaxwell's CheckUser access was previously discussed here, here and here. odder (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did anybody ever ask Gmaxwell directly about whether he would be willing to renounce CU access by himself? --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trijnstel and Steinspitter did, almost a year ago. Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nevertheless, it would have been better to do it shortly before starting such a process. Anyway, I've notified him now via wikimail. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info Gmaxwell replied here. Trijnstel_talk 21:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He claimed the following: "commons declined my assistance rather than me being unwilling to offer it" - that's incorrect. I told him last year that CUs should be able to see the work themselves, rather than always inform them privately that there are open requests. Furthermore, we had a period of time when there were open requests for a while and no one responded to that, and that was more than a week. It was the perfect situation for him to show his willingness to help, but he didn't show up.
- And also: all inactive admins were notified via email as well, so his claim that he was "unable to edit at all due to proxy blocking" is incorrect as well. He could've replied via email, but he didn't. Steinsplitter gave him an ipblock exempt in September, yet he kept his silence until now.
- I'm sorry, but I'm rather disappointed at such an agressive response... Trijnstel_talk 21:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as a clarification of this ("decided not to chase after it beyond sending an email"), that's untrue as well. He send an email to Steinsplitter on 14 September, but Odder just confirmed to me that Gmaxwell didn't email him, while Odder coordinated the latest admin inactivity round. Trijnstel_talk 22:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would be awkward for me to vote in this since I was one of the stewards giving my opinion, but to give a bit of perspective, stewards are generally reluctant to act outside the letter of the rules in the areas of rights removal (and privacy), as that can cause controversy. In this case, it's less controversial to have the community decide, rather than having the decision come from us, which isn't really our role. --Rs chen 7754 04:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment on the issue, but I would note that having a watchlist notice about this seems rather excessive. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I would rather never see any bureaucratic infighting. Not a pleasant sight. Primaler (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Peel my de-crat discussion was not only advertised as a watchlist notice, but was allowed to be heavily canvassed across non-neutral venues. What's the problem exactly? russavia (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't spot that happening, but I'd have said something similar had I done. If watchlist notices were used when people stand for checkuser/bureaucrat status, then using them for de-cu/crat discussions would make more sense, but otherwise it seems weird. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mike Peel: I'm not sure about bureaucrats but it seems that there were at least 3 precedents of publicizing oversigher/checkuser nominations using the tool: 1, 2, 3. These are among the 5 oversighter/checkuser nominations we have had since the introduction of the current system of Help:Watchlist messages. whym (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks @Whym: that's great to see, and it goes a long way to resolving my worry here. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Gmaxwell (de-checkuser)

Gmaxwell (de-checkuser)

Votes

Comments

Navigation menu

Search