Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 165.91.13.25 - "→Application question: " |
|||
Line 8:
Just pointing out that according to [[WP:CU]] Checkusers are not required to be administrators. If this has changed that (and other pages) need to be updated. If not, I'm wondering why the announcement is worded to imply they must be administrators. [[Special:Contributions/165.91.13.84|165.91.13.84]] ([[User talk:165.91.13.84|talk]]) 23:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:Checkusers don't technically have to be administrators (I think French Wikipedia has one), but for them to be selected, they must be elected through an RFA-like process. Since here, the ArbCom appoints functionaries, the WMF restricts us from appointing anyone who has not passed such a process. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 23:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there a link to that? Understanding is that that only applied to "access to deleted revisions", which CU doesn't provide. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.91.13.25|165.91.13.25]] ([[User talk:165.91.13.25|talk]]) 12:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Do we really need more editors with CU access? A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=500 Listusers] inquiry turn up about 30-40 editors with access to the tool. Also, on other Wikipedias the access is rotated from year to year. [[User:VegasCasinoKid|VegasCasinoKid]] ([[User talk:VegasCasinoKid|talk]]) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
| |||