Talk:CheckUser policy/Users with CheckUser access

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alphabetization[edit]

Thanks for straightening that out CBrown1023 ! Alphabetization is a good idea. However I think since we have "everywhere" at the top, we should put Commons and Meta there too, at the top, instead of at the very bottom where they are now. They are sort of special cases. I'll do it shortly if no one objects. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I like it the way it is... it sems to *work* and make sense. Everywhere is everywhere, so it goes at the top. That way people who don't really understand the whole thing, can just see who to ask. Meta goes at the bottom, because it is a different project (and doesn't have many "elected ones") and Wikimedia Commons is at the bottom alphabetically (and it's multilingual :)). I was just alphabetizing the individual names because that's how it is on the user lists and is easiest to check that way, and makes the most sense. ;) Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorting[edit]

fi:/Finnish should be before fr:/French. Apokrif (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Trijnsteltalk 18:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of important, accurate information, repeatedly replaced with inaccurate information.[edit]

User:Atcovi, why do you revert to a description that's misleading? I restored accuracy and you reverted. Please explain.

I think we all know that deliberate insertion of inaccurate information is vandalism. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is something other than that. That is not an accusation. --Elvey (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to discuss WHY you think that statement is misleading, because me and a few other editors don't understand why it is. Please discuss, rather than revert. Thank you. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I have. Must I again repeat what I put in edit summaries and what I added before you'll respond? :-(
I think it's been made obvious. For example, Jimbo is listed, but was NOT appointed by local ArbComs or elected to perform their duties on a regular basis. RSChen's claim that all but jimbo are appointed by ArbCom is true, but s/he edits the page to make a simply false statement that doesn't reflect that truth.
Another example: Deliberately omitting the information that the lists do not include, for example, stewards who got the rights temporarily results in a misleading page, IMO.
Again, let's continue these discussions here on the article's talk page, where they belong.--Elvey (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
So all the fuss is about Jimbo? Come on... We all know Jimbo is not appointed, and added the rights himself a while ago using his local founder flag at enwp as @Rschen7754 said. And the accusations of vandalism... no comment. —MarcoAurelio 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that diff (of @Rschen7754:'s edit) as saying that Jimbo is self appointed, rather, I see it is deliberate removal of accurate information, as the result is that hides the facts that were previously made clear: that the list is incomplete and that it is not always up-to-date. So that's WHY it's misleading, Atcovi & co. And it leaves it unclear why Jimbo is listed alone. How would adding this not improve things?: "So for example, it does not include stewards who got the rights temporarily for ACE2015." How does saying "The user lists on this page are" not improve on "This list is" ? --Elvey (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, why are ordinary users allowed to edit this page at all? From a cursory look at the history, there have been very few productive edits by non-sysops/stewards, while all the rest had to be reverted. In the end, correct me if I'm wrong, but the CU flag can't be turned on/off locally anyway, so there's very little reason for anyone who's not a steward to edit the page. And in those rare cases where there is such reason, that's what the talk page is (also) for. My main concern actually is that the page can be used for social engineering. Perhaps not too likely, considering that the page is watched, but it isn't also like there are not some tricks when editing that might hide a malicious change to the page if whoever patrols it is not careful enough. To summarize, I see little risk, but also little benefit in keeping this page only semi-protected. And if the wasted time in reverting non-productive edits is added, for me the balance is more towards full protection. Well, just my two cents anyway. :)
— Luchesar • T/C 05:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
After reverting more nonsense from Elvey, I'd be inclined to agree. The rationale of "if stewards forget we need to let everyone do it" doesn't seem incredibly convincing. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
As a non-admin non-steward, I have updated the pages after stewards have forgotten to do so... to be a bit blunt I would rather that Elvey was blocked for disruption instead. --Rschen7754 06:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019[edit]

2401:E180:8831:95B8:886C:23B0:CC33:3AC 19:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the request?--AldnonymousBicara? 19:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)