Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Application question

The nomination statement is made after the applicant receives the first questionnaire; is that right? Thus, the first e-mail is nothing more than asking for the questionnaire.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The first email is to ask for the questionnaire. (We keep a list of those who has asked for one, in order to contact applicants and make sure things don't get lost in the ether if we never get it back; asking for one carries absolutely no obligation to complete it.) The application statement is made with the questionnaire. The statement is the only part of the application that will be shared outside the Arbitration Committee. Application statements may be revised after vetting is complete, for publication on wiki, if candidates desire. Candidates may also edit their application statement after it is published. (The supervising arbitrators will create a page for each candidate, and publish the application statement on it.) Courcelles 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. 165.91.13.84 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Courcelles 23:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to that? Understanding is that that only applied to "access to deleted revisions", which CU doesn't provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.25 (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need more editors with CU access? A 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. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]