Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Courcelles (talk | contribs) further |
MarcGarver (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 10:
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-->
:{{u|Philippe (WMF)}}, the WMF's Director of Community Advocacy, said it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=545773892&oldid=prev on WT:ACN in 2013]. Also note that, per [[Special:ListGroupRights]], the CU flag ''does'' provide access to deleted revisions on this project. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::Agreed although one could argue that there are other roles where the WMF has already provided this clearance. For example, a Steward has rights to see deleted revisions on all projects, including en.wiki, and therefore could conceivably be appointed a CU or OS here without being an administrator here. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea by the way, just noting it is hypothetically possible! [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 08:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
: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)
| |||