Wiktionary talk:Votes/cu-2017-08/User:Koavf for checkuser

Make Koavf an admin also

While I can see what Meta is saying about having a non-admin as a checkuser could have some benefits, I think that all checkusers should be admins. I don't see this as disqualifying Koavf, rather I think they should become an admin. There are a few reasons for this:

1. If you are trusted enough to be a CU, you are trusted enough to be an admin. Being an admin is not special, it should be a default for any trusted member of the community.
2. Not being an admin is a serious handicap on effective CU work. Being able to review deleted/hidden contributions, and especially being able to block and unblock are the lion's share of the work. It can become tricky in some cases to request blocks without revealing information which should be private (e.g. "please block 127.0.0.1 and BadUser6" or "if BadUser6 is blocked you should also block 127.0.0.1/24").

Also Koavf should probably just be an admin. - TheDaveRoss 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How often does that kind of investigational work really happen? My experience is chiefly that someone has a suspicion founded in evidence and gets a checkuser to confirm (and that in itself doesn't happen too commonly). Of course, giving Koavf the tools would have value even if he never uses them, considering that he will be likely be perpetually active, and thus you will be unsuspended. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Any CU work at all is fairly rare, but the majority of the investigations do not begin or end on the requests page. Requests via email or IRC are more common than requests on wiki, and as often as those are investigations that I undertake based on observations I make myself (e.g. another admin blocks someone with a reason that indicates they may be a persistent vandal and are evading blocks). In the last case I will quietly create the range block so as to avoid connecting individuals to IPs as far as is possible. - TheDaveRoss 14:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: I would like to have admin rights as there have been times when it would have been helpful to edit protected pages (e.g. when I was replacing magic links to ISBNs with the template that I copied here) but I don't want that to sidetrack the CU discussion, so in case that makes it too complicated, then we can skip it. I hope other users think my edits are competent and helpful enough and my demeanor acceptable for someone with advanced user rights. @Metaknowledge: As Dave suggested, CU is rare but the nice thing is that if there is someone local to do it, we don't have to have a steward come over from Meta to do it. And yes, there is a CU wiki where we talk, I get several emails a day about cross-wiki vandalism, and there are a couple of active IRC channels for the rights as well. Altho this is a local change in rights, it cuts across all WMF wikis so there is a lot of collaboration that goes on outside of any one project. In a way, that means that it's nice to make someone a CU on a wiki who is already a CU because it won't add that much of a burden to the person with the new user rights. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: Do you want to nominate me for adminship and run that concurrently? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)