Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
#Exactly as Callenecc put it. And we don't need another several micro-sections like this for other bits arbs might want; it's the same question each time: Should they get the bit automatically, not at all, or provisionally? I can't see any reason to answer other than "provisionally" with regard to any bit normally restricted to admins, other than the "dangerous" ones, which should be "not at all" unless and until they do RfA. WP is essentially a role-based meritocracy, not a military-style hierarchy. But even in hierarchies, we have role limitations. ArbCom is essentially our judiciary, and admins our executive branch. In the real world (at least in any country you'd want to live in), judges are not also police and cannot shoot you from the bench for contempt of court, just as copes do not get to sentence you to death because they suspect you might be guilty. [[Separation of powers]] is important. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
#Exactly as Callenecc put it. And we don't need another several micro-sections like this for other bits arbs might want; it's the same question each time: Should they get the bit automatically, not at all, or provisionally? I can't see any reason to answer other than "provisionally" with regard to any bit normally restricted to admins, other than the "dangerous" ones, which should be "not at all" unless and until they do RfA. WP is essentially a role-based meritocracy, not a military-style hierarchy. But even in hierarchies, we have role limitations. ArbCom is essentially our judiciary, and admins our executive branch. In the real world (at least in any country you'd want to live in), judges are not also police and cannot shoot you from the bench for contempt of court, just as copes do not get to sentence you to death because they suspect you might be guilty. [[Separation of powers]] is important. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
#Automatic? No. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
#Automatic? No. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Create new right for Arbs, held while sitting == |
|||
This should allow all the bits they need to be bundled into one, while allowing us to set up edit filters to limit who edits pages, and make identifying arb edits more straightforward. |
|||
=== Support (Arb user right group) === |
|||
#As proposer [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 13:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Oppose (Arb user right group) === |
|||
==General Discussion== |
==General Discussion== |
Revision as of 13:04, 16 November 2015
A handful of editors have raised the question as to whether non-administrators who are elected to the arbitration committee should be granted the administrator right. (1, 2) Successful candidates are granted the checkuser and oversight permissions in order to assist with their duties as an arbitrator. It is outside the scope of the arbitration election commission role to decide if a non-administrator appointed to the arbitration committee should be granted the administrator right and the community does not have an established policy. Given the significant number of non-administrator candidates this year, the community should discuss if non-administrators should or should not be granted administrative rights if appointed. Also, if granted the administrator right, whether or not they may retain it after leaving the arbitration committee.
For ease of reference, the permissions of the administrator, checkuser, and oversight groups are included below:
The administrator group provides the following permissions:
|
---|
|
The checkuser group provides the following permissions:
|
---|
|
The oversight group provides the following permissions:
|
---|
|
Should non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee be granted the administrator right?
Support granting administrator right
- Yes, in order to make them as able as other Arbs to carry out their duties. However, it should be made explicit that the admin right is to be used only in carrying out ArbCom activities, and not otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that it wouldn't make sense if Arbs could desysop admins without being admins themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why not? Even now, arbs do not carry out the desysop procedure on their own. The ability to arbitrate in disputes and carry out admin actions are separate things, and I'm not clear what aspects of the latter are useful in the former. — Earwig talk 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because they participate in the decision, even if they do not use the tools for that discussion. The point isn't whether they use the tools for it, but rather a matter of it being absurd to say that they cannot use the tools but they can evaluate whether someone else should be dismissed from using them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish:Arbs do have the right to remove the bureaucrat rights, even though most of them have never held that right. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for pointing that out. Actually, I don't care all that much about any of this. I just happened to be the first person to show up at the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish:Arbs do have the right to remove the bureaucrat rights, even though most of them have never held that right. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because they participate in the decision, even if they do not use the tools for that discussion. The point isn't whether they use the tools for it, but rather a matter of it being absurd to say that they cannot use the tools but they can evaluate whether someone else should be dismissed from using them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why not? Even now, arbs do not carry out the desysop procedure on their own. The ability to arbitrate in disputes and carry out admin actions are separate things, and I'm not clear what aspects of the latter are useful in the former. — Earwig talk 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that it wouldn't make sense if Arbs could desysop admins without being admins themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support as regard to ArbCom duties. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I should stress here that I support this wholly and exclusively for ArbCom-related business. That means for example: (i) no closing AFDs, (ii) no blocking trolls/vandals (unless it's on an ArbCom case page), and no page protections (unless it's directly related to (ii)). And yes it is sometimes necessary for arbitrators to have the admin tools, in order to act promptly to prevent disruption to ArCom business. Roger Davies talk 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like what? Can you give an example of a time that an Arb needed to take admin action when absolutely no admins where available to help? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It quite often happens that there are none immediately available on either the ArbCom-l list or Clerks, especially mornings (UTC). It isn't always appropriate to ask at WP:AN or WP:ANI because it's drawing additional attention to something. Roger Davies talk 22:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like when? Can you give an example of a time that an Arb needed to take admin action when absolutely no admins where available to help? Presumably, oversight and checkuser would actually be far more relevant to an Arbcom member than admin? (p.s. you are aware that AFDs can be closed by non-admins?) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Many admins are diffident about acting on ArbCom pages, and may not wish to effectively proxy for an arbitrator. While OS and CU are more relevant, it seems silly, for example, for an Oversighter to be able to remove offending material but not be able to block the culpit or protect the page, leaving the culpit able to carry on. This is particularly the case with WP:OUTING and some of the ugly harassment we see these days. Roger Davies talk 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like what? Can you give an example of this? Why is this suddenly necessary? What events have precipitated the sudden need for a free pass to any Arbcom member to be a "partial" admin? When did an outing take place without quick admin action? Since admin actions are visible through the history of pages, this seems an unlikely reason to pursue this course of action. Ugly harassment can only be properly countered with admin and oversight privileges. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Non-admin arbitrators will get OS and CU on request; the WFM (who control this) have confirmed this. Roger Davies talk 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please actually answer some of the questions I've posed, where has this lack of admin bit been detrimental to Wikipedia, or is it just conjecture? And frankly, if these non admin arbs can get os and cu upon request, this is a futile discussion. They can make posts vanish, they can determine locations of logged in users "upon request" but just can't block a rude editor?? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- How can I answer the question when the situation hasn't arisen before? But it does not strike me as beneficial to the project to create a two-tier arbitrator structure nor to effectively disenfranchise 30,000 odd potential candidates at a time when ArbCom needs the best people that the project can offer. And there is far more to Oversight than dealing with "rude editors", as you so dismissively put it. Roger Davies talk 23:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please actually answer some of the questions I've posed, where has this lack of admin bit been detrimental to Wikipedia, or is it just conjecture? And frankly, if these non admin arbs can get os and cu upon request, this is a futile discussion. They can make posts vanish, they can determine locations of logged in users "upon request" but just can't block a rude editor?? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Non-admin arbitrators will get OS and CU on request; the WFM (who control this) have confirmed this. Roger Davies talk 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like what? Can you give an example of this? Why is this suddenly necessary? What events have precipitated the sudden need for a free pass to any Arbcom member to be a "partial" admin? When did an outing take place without quick admin action? Since admin actions are visible through the history of pages, this seems an unlikely reason to pursue this course of action. Ugly harassment can only be properly countered with admin and oversight privileges. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Many admins are diffident about acting on ArbCom pages, and may not wish to effectively proxy for an arbitrator. While OS and CU are more relevant, it seems silly, for example, for an Oversighter to be able to remove offending material but not be able to block the culpit or protect the page, leaving the culpit able to carry on. This is particularly the case with WP:OUTING and some of the ugly harassment we see these days. Roger Davies talk 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like when? Can you give an example of a time that an Arb needed to take admin action when absolutely no admins where available to help? Presumably, oversight and checkuser would actually be far more relevant to an Arbcom member than admin? (p.s. you are aware that AFDs can be closed by non-admins?) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It quite often happens that there are none immediately available on either the ArbCom-l list or Clerks, especially mornings (UTC). It isn't always appropriate to ask at WP:AN or WP:ANI because it's drawing additional attention to something. Roger Davies talk 22:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like what? Can you give an example of a time that an Arb needed to take admin action when absolutely no admins where available to help? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I should stress here that I support this wholly and exclusively for ArbCom-related business. That means for example: (i) no closing AFDs, (ii) no blocking trolls/vandals (unless it's on an ArbCom case page), and no page protections (unless it's directly related to (ii)). And yes it is sometimes necessary for arbitrators to have the admin tools, in order to act promptly to prevent disruption to ArCom business. Roger Davies talk 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support - per Tryptofish, and with no restrictions. That said, once the ArbCom term be over, the Admin flag would go away also. Though, unless the Arb was hopeless, I'd imagine an Rfa would be easy enough to pass. However I doubt this will pass. Admins will close ranks, as usual. Hope it's overruled if a non-admin is elected as Arb. Jusdafax 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. It has been a few years but I doubt the work has changed fundamentally; in my opinion all arbitrators need the ability to view deleted revisions, and other additional viewing rights given by admin status. It simply isn't possible to do the job without them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Sam Blacketer: What viewing rights aren't granted with CheckUser or Oversight? Kharkiv07 (T) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- My concern here is that if we don't give non admin editors the tools they will be reliant upon administrator arbitrators to perform required actions. This could create a sort of dependency that could lead to the perception of a two-tiered arbitration committee: admins, and non-admins. While I could perform my duties on arbcom without the tools the majority of the time, I think it's important to put everyone on the same playing field. NativeForeigner Talk 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- As in vogue as ArbCom-bashing has been, the fact of the matter is that ArbCom is comprised of people who have to win a popular election, and are entrusted to behave in a manner according the importance of their office. If we can't even trust arbs to treat one another equally, ignoring adminship status, how can we trust them to preside over cases involving a mixture of admins and non-admins? I'm not saying the admin-arbs vs. non-admin-arbs scenario you suggest is impossible, NativeForeigner, but unless there's something more significant I don't think this concern is sufficient to carve out an exception to requiring editors to stand for RfA.
- If the problem is, instead, that admins have come to represent a different caste than regular editors, then we should be having an RfC to reform how adminship works. Treat the roots before the branches. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support for arbcom duties only. Whether they use the admin rights they have regularly or not, they need to have them available for when they are the only one in a position to act. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Although administrator rights are not needed for arbitrators, it would be cumbersome to request admin actions. If the non-admin arbitrators can't be trusted to limit their use their admin tools to their ArbCom duties, then why trust them with the role of arbitrator? Esquivalience t 03:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- No question that the answer should be yes. Basically, I agree with Esquivalience: if we can trust you to be an arbitrator, why can't we trust you with admin rights? I think I made a proposal of this sort several months ago, although I don't know if it attracted much attention (I can't look it up, as I don't remember when or where I made it), and of course we wouldn't be having this discussion if it had passed. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure we should give CU and OS to all arbitrators, but adminship for their arbitration duties is no big deal. —Kusma (t·c) 07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support per admin tools being no big deal. Arb candidates might be ex-admins, or their skills might suit them to Arb much better than the admin bit. If the community trusts someone to be an Arb, they should have the mop during their tenure, just for Arb purposes, so the committee is a level-playing field. Let's not have a two-tiered system of Arbs that a. have and b. haven't got the bit. Those below, who suggest that they will be even less accepting of non-admins running for Arb if this gets up, need to take a long hard look. The "big deal" issues with RfA just keep giving don't they? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- If they can be trusted with some of the most sensitive and private information we have available, surely they can be trusted with a few extra interface buttons. And in practice, the admin tools can be useful in arbitration. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support unlimited adminship. Indeed, becoming an admin is not a big deal: it requires a degree of competence, trust, and general familiarity with Wikipedia - all of which is also needed in the ArbCom, only with more stringent requirements. One could argue that sitting in the ArbCom is a big deal, so if you don't feel prospective ArbCom members should have admin rights, then by all means do not vote for them. GregorB (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think I could put it better than GregorB just did. Adminship should be the default for any user the community has deemed to be trustworthy. If they're not trustworthy, they shouldn't be voted in as an arbitrator. WaggersTALK 13:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose granting administrator right
- I can't stress this enough: they don't need it for arbcom duties. They have all the perms they need by way of CheckUser and Oversight. It makes no sense to grant them unrelated permissions because they were elected for ArbCom. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also: if these people can "easily pass a RfA", then who is it hurting to make them run? Kharkiv07 (T) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. Election to the arbitration committee doesn't mean that someone is qualified to be an administrator. That's a far more rigorous process than winning an election, as it's based on a thorough evaluation of the person's aptitude: see Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. Winning some vote doesn't cut it. Also it isn't necessary for someone on the arbitration committee to be able to do everything an admin can do. They're there to arbitrate, and they can still do that. If they want to be admins too, let them earn it the same way everyone else has to. Richard75 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- RfA is just "winning some vote". It is no more and no less than another election. All you are saying is that RfA should not be used to appoint admins. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Based on reviewing the relevant rights for each group, I'm not clear which rights are relevant to serving as an arbitrator that are not already given by the functionary groups (e.g., browsing deleted pages). — Earwig talk 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per Earwig. wctaiwan (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It seems that Roger Davies can provide absolutely zero substantive evidence that this is actually required. As such this is a no-brainer. We have hundreds of admins who are available around the clock to perform easy tasks like blocking and page protection, there's nothing that can't be fixed in a few minutes by an admin after a request from a non-admin Arbcom member. What would be far more relevant would be to award all Arbcom members with oversight privileges, as that's far more pertinent should things go awry in certain Arbcom cases. Finally, if it's just about doing some Arbcom admin, then an RFA should be cake walk. If it isn't, perhaps the candidate shoudn't be considered appropriate for Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- If a user hasn't the experience to get the admin bit in the normal manner, they certainly haven't got the experience for Arbcom. See my comment below. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- If they want to be admins, let them go through the RFA process. With the CU and Oversight rights, they should have everything they need for their ArbCom duties. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per Kharkiv07,The Earwig and Od Mishehu. RFA ,RFB and Arbcom are 3 different processes in Eng Wiki project.With CU and OS they will be able view deleted material which is necessary for Arb duties.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. RfA is a totally different process, being an admin is a different job, and you can work around an Arb not having the tools. That said, wanting to be an on ArbCom and not wanting to be an admin seems kind of odd, and wanting to be on ArbCom and not being able to pass RfA seems kind of sketchy... but if people want to elect someone like that it's their right I guess.Herostratus (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. Non-administrator-arbitrators can rely on administrator-arbitrators to show them deleted material or aid in whatever else they need to do their job without the tools. Being an Arb should not be a back-door to being an admin. BMK (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per everyone above... checkuser/oversight gives them everything they need. Plenty of admins to execute the blocks — MusikAnimal talk 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I oppose because I don't believe arbs themselves should be undertaking administrative activity in connection with open cases, rather than making determinations and directing administrator-clerks to do the actual blocking, revdeling, whatever-ing. My conception of arbitration is of an impartial body making determinations on a case; taking administrative activity in connection with a case, especially an ongoing one, opens the committee to accusations of partiality. Much as a judge in a courtroom does not step down from the bench to arrest someone being held in contempt, I don't think our arbs should be directly issuing blocks (or other admin actions) in cases they are trying. The other permissions they are granted—oversight and checkuser—are important to reviewing some evidence submitted in proceedings. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per MusikAnimal. As sometimes painfully obvious, arbcom actions requiring the tools are not time-sensitive. Plus, if you look at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014#Results, many arbs received significantly less than the RFA discretionary threshold. --NeilN talk to me 00:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Rambling Man. Openskye (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty strong oppose to granting the admin-bit, whether temporary while as an arb, or permanently-for-life. As others noted, not needed... but more crucially to my mind, counterproductive: such a move will quite predictably screw up the dynamics of the arbcom elections. We do not want to see hat-collection by RfA#N folks. We also do not want to see perfectly good arb-candidates who happen to be non-admins, getting opposed *because* of them getting to be automagically admin-ized. It is hard enough for non-admins to have a shot at winning an arb-seat, this is the first time it as seemed likedly to happen in many moons. p.s. If there were already half-a-dozen arbs that were non-admins, I might change my tune, but at present there are zero such folks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- 75 has raised an excellent point that I don't see elsewhere on here. We absolutely do not want good non-admin ArbCom candidates getting their candidacies shot down, RfA-style, because they haven't met a variety of editors' criteria for adminship. In short, the scenario 75 points out is one where we might as well limit ArbCom to admins in good standing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- My initial reaction on seeing this RFC was "yes, during their term only", but on reflection, the main purpose of giving CU/OS even if they're not limited in its uses are for viewing deleted/private information. That part of sysop are included with OS, so no to sysop (weakly). -- KTC (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- After thinking about it some, I oppose for the same reasons as MusikAnimal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Doing this would create an even higher bar for the voting process for ArbCom. Guy1890 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- No non-admins have ever been elected to ArbCom. It is clearly the position of the community that candidates who cannot pass RFA or cannot handle the stress of administration are completely unqualified to serve as arbitrators. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to see some actual non-admins on ArbCom in the interests of having a different perspective. Giving them the bit as soon as they are elected defeats that purpose. Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see what they'd need it, CU & OS allow them to see deleted material. If they need to see other things then they can be given other (non-admin) userrights (private abuse filters is the only one I can think of at the moment and WP:Edit filter manager would do that). If they want to be an admin, there's WP:RFA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per 75.108.94.227. There might be strong opposition to a non-admin by those who would not support the candidate for RfA. Arbitration is not a fast process and non-admin arbitrators will have time to be informed of anything they are missing. A minor issue is the risk that hat collectors might be encouraged to run for Arbcom if it comes with an admin bit. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is unnecessary. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Unless someone can point out a credible reason why not having them would prevent an arb performing their arb duties. About the only situation I can think of would be placing an emergency block based on info submitted privately to Arbcom. And there are (for now) always administrators around to do that. If it turns out in practice this is unworkable (due to admins not being available/unwilling) this can be revisited later at which point there will be a credible reason to have the mop. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- !vote is not vote. That is the difference between RfA and ArbCom election. If arbs == admins, then admin after arb should be a piece of cake. —UY Scuti Talk 09:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, because they could be quickly made administrators if they should really need administrators' rights in ArbCom. Zezen (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. Arbs don't need it. If they want it, they can run for RfA like everyone else. If they're likely to get elected to ArbCom they're also likely to pass RfA without a hitch. This proposal is a waste of time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- No reason to bypass RFA at all. GiantSnowman 12:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If and only if non-administrator arbitrators are granted the administrator right, should they be permitted to retain the right after leaving the committee?
Support retaining administrator right after leaving the arbitration committee
- I think after a person is elected to the arbitration committee, they should hold their admin rights unless action is brought against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhat999 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we decide that election to ArbCom is sufficient vote of confidence to give them the mop, then there's no logical reason to take it back except for cause. And the passage of time (term on ArbCom) is not cause. ~ MD Otley (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Arbcom election is not WP:RFA. --NeilN talk to me 00:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per MD Otley. If (big if) ArbCom election is deemed sufficient to show that they're trusted with the mop, there's no reason to assume they're suddenly untrustworthy at the end of their term. WaggersTALK 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose retaining administrator right after leaving the arbitration committee
- It should be only while serving. Afterwards, the person should go through RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 21:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Kharkiv07 (T) 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Like CU and OS, they should only be granted for the duration of service on the arbitration committee. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Current practice permits leaving arbitrators to retain the CU and/or OS permission, provided that they will meet the activity requirements. Mike V • Talk 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Self-evidently no. Richard75 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we decide to do it, this is analogous to the way CU and OS are granted. If it's given for Committee reasons, then it should not last after users have left the Committee. — Earwig talk 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely not. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, per above opposers. Jusdafax 22:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per above, RFA is a different process.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, an Arb election is not an RfA. BMK (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I recall previous arbitrators requesting checkuser/oversight after involvement with the committee. Whether or not this is regularly done in practice, I think it should for the admin bit and they should go through an RfA. Adminship differs greatly from ArbCom duties — MusikAnimal talk 00:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Former arbitrators in good standing may retain (or regain, I believe) CU and/or oversight if they ask for it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming they have not passed an RFA during their term of course. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty strong oppose; RfA should be orthogonal, see also my bangvote rationale above, to giving out the admin-bit even temporarily. Tying in the admin-bit to an arbcom-win will further skew the candidate-pool, and the electorate-tactics, in ways that will make non-admin candidates even less likely to win than they already are. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per my oppose to the first question. --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Tryptofish. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Graham (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- This new process would circumvent the existing RfA process, which needs reform. Guy1890 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, just in case the proposal above passes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the privilege goes with the job, the privilege goes away with the job. John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Can't see a reason why ex-arbitrators should automatically be admins. —Kusma (t·c) 07:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. If it is just needed for the job, it stops when the job finishes. If they want it after their time on Arb, they should have to go through the RfA process like all the other poor sods who submit themselves to that sham of a "process". As someone else has said, if they were a half-decent Arb, they'll be fine running the gauntlet. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- If they have not passed an RfA by the time they leave the Committee, the tools should be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Run for an RfA. As simple as that.—UY Scuti Talk 09:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- While it's not very likely that someone would be elected to ArbCom but rejected for RfA, it's not inconceivable, since the criteria and processes are different. I seem to recall that various WMF employees have been failed at RfA, so this could actually happen. It's most likely to happen if the Arb's tenure was marked by poor decision making. No one should be elected as an Arb, do terrible in this role, then emerge with a free Admin bit. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- No reason to bypass RFA at all. GiantSnowman 12:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If and only if non-administrator arbitrators are granted the administrator right, should they be restricted to using the right exclusively for ArbCom-related business?
Support restricting use of administrator right to ArbCom-related business only
- Yep. That's what they would be getting it for. Makes sense to restrict its user to Arb duties. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I !volted for above. It can be broadly construed, but routine admin business should only be conducted if RfA is passed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely. If they got the bits because it turns out somehow that Arbs actually need it for some technical or procedural reason as part of their duties, that has nothing to do with whether they've been through the examination and approval process by which the community decides whether to trust them with the general ability to use admin tools. While it's not very likely that someone would be elected to ArbCom but rejected for RfA, it's not inconceivable, since the criteria and processes are different. I seem to recall that various WMF employees have been failed at RfA, so this could actually happen. It's most likely to happen if the Arb's tenure was marked b poor decision making. No one should be elected as an Arb, do terrible in this role, then emerge with a free Admin bit. For the same reason, no one provisionally granted the Admin bit should be presumed to have carte blanche to act as an admin with full authority that the community hasn't vetted them for. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- If they did get the bit as a consequence of being elected on to ArbCom, then their tools should be severely limited. GiantSnowman 12:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose restricting use of administrator right to ArbCom-related business only
- I don't see this restriction as even workable in practice. Who's going to enforce it? Is another admin going to actually jump in if an arb uses election-granted tools and block the arb? Is ArbCom going to rapidly desysop one of their own? For undertaking a needful administrative task? I see this as an envelope that's going to just get pushed and pushed. So I say that if the community thinks non-admin arbs should be automatically made admins, the community should take that with all adminship normally entails, and that includes being able to rove around and use the tools for better or worse. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely preferable (and if auto-admining passes should be considered best practice) but impossible to enforce. Not for the reason stated above but simply because somethings happen automatically (eg autopatrolled) and there will enevitably be legitimate disagreement about what ArbCom-related business is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per User:Mendaliv: such a restriction would most likely not be enforced so it's a moot point. Let's not make rules for the sake of it that have no practical impact. WaggersTALK 12:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If and only if non-administrator arbitrators are not granted the administrator right, should they be given the edit filter manager right along with checkuser and oversight rights?
Support adding edit filter manager right
- The EFM right will give access to private filters and private filter logs, which may be necessary for the Arb's other functions in the same way as CU and OS. I believe this assignment should not be automatic, these rights should not be retained after their term, and it should not encourage Arbs to edit or create filters. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Arbitrators do need to be able to view edit filters and logs, and we have in fact had a case this year where that was specifically at issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support as per zzuzz & seraphimblade. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose adding edit filter manager right
- Not automatically. If they need it they can ask for it as well as any other user right (including CU & OS). The admin (probably another arb) who grants it can set terms of use if they feel it necessary (as is done when assigning rights to the arb clerks or assigning the account creator right). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly as Callenecc put it. And we don't need another several micro-sections like this for other bits arbs might want; it's the same question each time: Should they get the bit automatically, not at all, or provisionally? I can't see any reason to answer other than "provisionally" with regard to any bit normally restricted to admins, other than the "dangerous" ones, which should be "not at all" unless and until they do RfA. WP is essentially a role-based meritocracy, not a military-style hierarchy. But even in hierarchies, we have role limitations. ArbCom is essentially our judiciary, and admins our executive branch. In the real world (at least in any country you'd want to live in), judges are not also police and cannot shoot you from the bench for contempt of court, just as copes do not get to sentence you to death because they suspect you might be guilty. Separation of powers is important. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Automatic? No. GiantSnowman 12:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Create new right for Arbs, held while sitting
This should allow all the bits they need to be bundled into one, while allowing us to set up edit filters to limit who edits pages, and make identifying arb edits more straightforward.
Support (Arb user right group)
- As proposer Mdann52 (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose (Arb user right group)
General Discussion
Although I've never had any dealings with Arbcom, I've always supposed that those on the panel are admins themselves. Many arbitration disputes involve the actions of admins, and I don't believe that those who haven't experienced the stresses of the mop are qualified to judge those of us who have. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence to the claim that the mop is necessary to perform arb work? It seems the arbs just pontificate on cases and to my mind that doesn't require any extra buttons. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- What about the admin IRC channel? NE Ent 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't decided how to vote on the main question, but surely, if we think an ArbCom election is a sufficient vote of confidence to give someone the mop, it must be a real mop: no restrictions on when, where, or how they use it. After all, it's no big deal, right? ~ MD Otley (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Where are we saying being elected to Arbcom is having community's confidence to have the mop? --NeilN talk to me 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's what the whole discussion is about, isn't it? That's why I said "if". ~ MD Otley (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN, to answer your question, WMF Legal says that being elected to arbcom is sufficient to have the mop.[1] Of course "WMF legal" is not the same thing as "the community", which is why we are having this RfC. If the RfC ends up giving us a clear consensus, then we three electoral commissioners will add our stamp of approval to the decision of the community and we are done. If there is no consensus, the decision will be made by the electoral commission. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's what the whole discussion is about, isn't it? That's why I said "if". ~ MD Otley (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Where are we saying being elected to Arbcom is having community's confidence to have the mop? --NeilN talk to me 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
"Many arbitration disputes involve the actions of admins, and I don't believe that those who haven't experienced the stresses of the mop are qualified to judge those of us who have."
Let me stress that I strongly oppose this line of thinking – a "jury of your peers" means a jury of your fellow human beings, not just the people in your field of endeavor... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)- Totally agree. When I read that quote, I thought of a jury of 12 cops judging the actions of a cop. The community chooses Arbs, not the "community of admins". That is one of the major problems with RfA.... The old "when I went through RfA, we had to live in shoebox in middle of road", so I'll make sure this candidate has to "lick road clean with tongue"... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Noting that many of the support-bangvotes are either arbcom members, or people who help draft arbcom case-pages. I get the vibe here that having non-admins sitting as arbs, will have appearance-of-a-caste-system, per e.g. the comment by User:NativeForeigner. Thus, to promote committee-unity and internal harmony, and avoid factionalism, the people closest to the arbcom mechanisms are in favor of having all sitting arbs be equals. But this is going to have the opposite effect: it is already nearly impossible for a non-admin to become an arb, since many arbcom voters will vote against non-admins simply because they are not yet admins. By passing a rule, that sitting arbs get automagically handed the mop, this exact same voter-mindset will be exacerbated: henceforth non-admins will get even less support, because an additional slice of the arbcom-electorate will not want those non-admins to become admins via the arbcom-election route! So in practice, unintended consequences will be the outcome. I suggest that the folks voting support, on the basis that they want all arbs to be seen as equals, should carefully consider whether they are making it harder for non-admins to have a shot in the first place. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I see a few issues:
- What admin powers are needed to perform the job?
- If those exceed CU + OS + whatever else the editor has do we want to provide the specific rights as part of an "arb" rights bundle, or do we want to provide the admin bundle?
- Do we want to place additional restrictions on how these powers are used? (E.G. Arbitration related purposes only.)
- In any of the above cases should they be kept post-arb? (Could be still with limitations to use.)
- It seems to me that we need to answer these questions in order. The people who can best answer question 1 are arbitrators and former arbitrators. I am not convinced by Roger's claims that (a significant part of) the Admin bundle is needed, but I am more convinced than if he had said nothing.
(Note: I am one of the candidates who, if elected, this would affect. I don't personally see a need for the block button, one of the most contentious.)
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
- I am a current candidate. I am not an admin. It says clearly on my user page that I do not wish to be one. In my normal editing I have no need to be one.
- If elected to ArbCom I appreciate that a solution has to be found to ensuring that I can see the things I need to see. If that is granting me the mop and bucket for the duration of my appointment, so be it. After the (potential) appointment ceases I do not want the mop, nor the bucket. I expect it to be taken away without ceremony, notice or discussion immediately on the expiration of my term. If I ever decide I want it I want to apply through the unamusing RfA process.
- I have no intention of using the toolset except as part of my (potential) ArbCom duties.
- We seem to be discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Surely, instead, the purpose is to build an encyclopaedia? Fiddle Faddle 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)