Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

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:


 * Add and remove arbitrary tags on individual revisions and log entries
 * Add or remove campus volunteers to courses
 * Add or remove instructors to courses
 * Add or remove online volunteers to courses
 * Add or remove yourself as campus volunteer from terms
 * Add or remove yourself as instructor from courses
 * Add or remove yourself as online volunteer from terms
 * Add or remove yourself as reviewer from articles
 * Block a user from sending email
 * Block other users from editing
 * Bulk delete courses
 * Bulk delete institutions
 * Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks
 * Change protection levels and edit cascade-protected pages
 * Configure how the latest accepted revision is selected and displayed
 * Create accounts with names similar to existing usernames
 * Create and delete tags from the database
 * Create new user accounts
 * Delete Flow topics and posts
 * Delete and undelete specific log entries (shared by administrator, oversight)
 * Delete and undelete specific revisions of pages (shared by administrator, oversight)
 * Delete pages
 * Disable global blocks locally
 * Disassociate articles from students
 * Edit Flow posts by other users
 * Edit other users' CSS files
 * Edit other users' JavaScript files
 * Edit pages protected as "Allow only administrators"
 * Edit pages protected as "Allow only autoconfirmed users"
 * Edit protected templates
 * Edit the user interface
 * Enroll in Education Program courses
 * Enroll users as student
 * Force a public user list to become hidden
 * Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled
 * Have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted"
 * Import pages from other wikis
 * Manage Education Program courses
 * Manage Education Program institutions
 * Manipulate JsonConfig via API
 * Mark Flow topics as resolved
 * Mark others' edits as patrolled
 * Mark revisions as being "accepted"
 * Mark rolled-back edits as bot edits
 * Mass delete pages
 * Merge the history of pages
 * Move category pages
 * Move files
 * Move pages
 * Move pages under pending changes
 * Move pages with their subpages
 * Move root user pages
 * Not be affected by IP-based rate limits
 * Not be affected by rate limits
 * Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages
 * Override files on the shared media repository locally
 * Override the title or username blacklist
 * Overwrite existing files
 * Perform CAPTCHA-triggering actions without having to go through the CAPTCHA
 * Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page
 * Remove reviewers from articles
 * Remove students from courses
 * Reset failed or transcoded videos so they are inserted into the job queue again
 * Revert all changes by a given abuse filter
 * Search deleted pages (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * See Education Program enrollment tokens
 * Send a message to multiple users at once
 * Unblock oneself
 * Undelete a page
 * Upload files
 * Use higher limits in API queries
 * View information about the current transcode activity
 * View a list of unwatched pages
 * View abuse filters marked as private
 * View deleted history entries, without their associated text (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * View detailed abuse log entries
 * View the spam blacklist log
 * View title blacklist log
 * unused permission
 * Add groups: Edit filter managers, Account creators, Autopatrolled, Confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors, Mass message senders, IP block exemptions, Course online volunteers, Course campus volunteers, Course instructors and Course coordinators
 * Remove groups: Rollbackers, Account creators, Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, File movers, Template editors, Mass message senders, IP block exemptions, Course online volunteers, Course campus volunteers, Course instructors and Course coordinators


 * Check the IP addresses and other information of user accounts; see Wikipedia:CheckUser.
 * Search deleted pages (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * View deleted history entries, without their associated text (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * View the checkuser log


 * Block a username, hiding it from the public
 * Delete and undelete specific log entries (shared by administrator, oversight)
 * Delete and undelete specific revisions of pages (shared by administrator, oversight)
 * Hide entries in the abuse log
 * Hide from administrators and restore elements of individual page revisions
 * Search deleted pages (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * Suppress Flow revisions
 * View deleted history entries, without their associated text (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions (shared by administrator, checkuser, oversight)
 * View hidden abuse log entries
 * View private logs

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)
 * 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)
 * 1) Support as regard to ArbCom duties.  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)   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)
 * If the situation has not arisen before, how can there be a need for it? That doesn't make sense. There is no disenfranchising nor is a '2 tier' structure being created as this is the system that already exists. Vynwood (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. Jus  da  fax   22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * What viewing rights aren't granted with CheckUser or Oversight? Kharkiv07  ( T ) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Support. Call me naive, but Arbcom is the second highest decision-making body in Wikipedia. If Arbcom members can be trusted to arbitrate disputes, they sure can be trusted with admin tools. Banedon (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support unlimited while in office, Admin, CU and OS to expire on exit from office. They can be requested from the community (in the case of adminship).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support for Arb duties only. Once their term is over, the bit is removed. Kosh Vorlon   16:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) I think that although some of the actions are unrelated it would help with gaining some extra information. It should be said that getting elected means that there is a good chance that the person is responsible enough to have admin for a short time. Hungryce (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. For the duration of an editor's appointment to the committee, they should enjoy unfettered access to the administrative toolkit.  By electing them to the committee in the first place, we are already trusting them with access to our most sensitive, private data; surely we can trust them not to delete the Main Page as well.   Hi DrNick ! 18:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support This seems obvious especially since admin is suppose to be no biggie! In fact, I see zero issue in grandfathering them in permanently. --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeadcopy</i><i style="color:black;">"bang!"</i> 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Granting admin rights will certainly enable and empower them to do their duties more effectively. If the members are elected by the vote of trust of the editors community then there is no reason that the admin rights can not be granted to them as these people will be known and proved trustworthy.--MahenSingha (Talk)  20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support In RfA we see wether candidate has community trust or not. If someone is becoming arbitrator then he/she obviously has community trust and it is less likely that he/she will abuse admin tools. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: Appears critical to doing the job and being able to perform the duties for which they were elected.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Yes - the election process surely implies more trust than adminhood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Winning this election is equivalent to passing an RfA. If they can win that test, they're sufficiently trustworthy for the bit.  Rcsprinter123    (cackle)  11:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Support (second choice). A member of Arbcom is, by definition, allowed to go everywhere and to look for everything. This is primary. The technical way this happens is secondary. Argument that Request for Adminship (RfA) is more selective than Arb election is blatantly false. Having 75% of 100 !votes in a confidential hearing held in 2009 is a lesser approval than having 51% of 1000 votes in a largely advertised election held recently. Moreover,  there are 12 admins among the candidates for the eight seats. Anyone that would be elected will be therefore more trusted that at least 4 admins.  If a non-admin is elected Arb, and held as not trusted to be an admin, what shall we do with the five non-elected admins? En masse desysop for lack of trust ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Appears to be precedent on German language Wikipedia. Winning an ArbCom election is more than equivalent to RfA, which is also an election. Should have whatever they need to do their job. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Support <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. If we trust them to be arbs I think we can and should also trust them to use this ex officio power only on arbcom business. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 24) SupportIt's a simple matter if they can't be trusted with admin rights then they can't be trusted on Arbcom. Note however, that if hey have never been an admin before as with any new admin, certain rights comes with certain responsibilities.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 25) Obviously If we trust them to be arbitrators, we trust them to be administrators. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 26) Support They have earned the trust and should be trusted that they will act within the appropriate limits. They are freely elected, i.e., appointed not annointed.  They are arbitrators, not kings, after all. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - We would trust non-admin arbs to make decisions and levy sanctions on some very sensitive issues, but not to be able to actually enforce those sanctions? That's like giving a police officer a badge and radio, but not a squad car, handcuffs, gun, or pepper spray. — Jkudlick t c s 16:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 28) Support -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 29) Support --Andreas JN 466 01:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 30) Support  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 31) Support absolutely, if they need to carry out their duties, they need access. It could be part of the election process, if you don't have admin access it is implicit that you will become an admin in addition to being on arbcom. If you get to the point where you are on the committee, you are trusted enough to be an admin. I don't see a specific reason to limit their admin tasks to arbcom business. I think they should retain permanent admin privileges unless they were expelled from arbcom for some reason. Jab843 (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Definitely. They are, after all, at the top of the food chain. Can you imagine the Vice President (of anything) having a power that the President did not have? What kind of insanity would that be?— VoiceOfreason VoiceOfreason   19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose granting administrator right

 * 1) 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)
 * I don't like the comments that winning an ArbCom election is harder than a RfA. Between the open voting/discussion, and the much higher level of support needed (30% is nothing to sneeze at!), those arguments simply don't sway me. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 Administrators. 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)
 * There's more to RfA than that, I suggest you read it. Richard75 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Per Earwig. wctaiwan (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) It seems that 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) 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. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Per MusikAnimal. As sometimes painfully obvious, arbcom actions requiring the tools are not time-sensitive. Plus, if you look at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014, many arbs received significantly less than the RFA discretionary threshold. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) I agree with Rambling Man. Openskye (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) 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. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) After thinking about it some, I oppose for the same reasons as MusikAnimal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Doing this would create an even higher bar for the voting process for ArbCom. Guy1890 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) It is unnecessary. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) !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)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) No reason to bypass RFA at all. GiantSnowman 12:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) The past and current arbitrators are wrong about what's needed to work effectively as an arbitrator. Years ago, the issue of Checkuser and Oversight access were addressed for non-admin arbs; both of these permissions contain all of the necessary accesses for non-admin arbs to carry out their responsibilities. There really is nothing that an arbitrator needs to do that requires admin bits. That arbitrators who are administrators are unable to imagine that anyone with fewer permissions could possibly do the job is unsurprising. Realistically, I doubt any current arbitrator can point to a situation where both arbcom membership and administrator tools together in a single person were required to resolve a specific situation. There really aren't all that many "emergency" situations, and many situations billed as emergencies are nowhere near such. The majority of arbitrators have never used their admin tools explicitly to address an arbcom issue that is so urgent it cannot wait for another admin. This is an unnecessary moral panic, and I'm rather saddened to see it happen. Risker (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose because I think all arbs should be admins anyway prior to running for the Committee..Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) No. Becoming an admin requires a greater level of trust than becoming a Committee member. It's relatively easy to be voted onto the Committee as the standard is significantly lower. If we were to bundle in the admin tools as well, then we should be looking at an election process at least as stringent as that required to become an admin. Admins act alone, the Committee acts as a body. Admins can have a Wheel War, Committee members argue in private, and then carry out the consensus. There is no real comparison between the individual responsibilities. If someone is elected onto the Committee who turns out to have poor judgement, they have little capacity for creating disruption on the project itself because an individual Committee member's role is mainly to make judgements – there are no potentially harmful tools as part of the role, and the rest of the Committee would balance out their poor judgements (having someone with poor judgement puts a bit of a strain on the Committee, which is why we should only elect those who are proved to be trustworthy, but it wouldn't be a strain on the community or the project). I don't think that being an admin is a necessary requirement for being part of the Committee; some of the tools (like looking at deleted content, and carrying out unblocks as part of the BASC process) are helpful, and those candidates who are already trusted with those tools are perhaps more likely to be elected than those who haven't because they will be of more use to the Committee as a whole, but a lack of those tools should not in itself be a reason not to elect.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't CU/OS count as "potentially harmful tools"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Goodness no! There's nothing that ArbCom does which requires use of the tools, they merely direct other mop-wielding and button-pushing users who have passed the appropriate community selection processes. Arbitrators are chosen in a secret ballot election behind the scenes and mostly out of sight and beyond the review of the community. RFA is more like an airing of grievances and trial by ordeal, but the community has long defended its right to subject its administrators to such a test. Just handing the tools to a group of users selected through an entirely different process, and who have no special need for them (per many users above me), would be highly inappropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely not – Giving editors admin rights while not going to RfA is a terrible idea. Even if RfA is a mess right now. Being an Arbitrator shouldn't come with benefits like this GamerPro64  17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. As I expect ArbCom members to be impartial without exception, the ability to give tools to those who do not already have them should not occur; those who do hold sysop rights should not use them without an extremely good excuse, as Risker mentions above. CU and OS rights are the only necessary tools for an ArbCom member. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 17:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Different animals, different responsibilities, separation of powers. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Arbs aren't elected for admin business. Even if mandated to use the tools only for arbcom business, the frontier with non-arbcom business would be difficult to maintain, creating complications, useless drama, etc. Cenarium (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose ArbCom and Admin are two different things; one should not be a prerequisite for the other, nor should one grant the other. It would be a good thing for ArbCom to have more representation of non-Administrators; a formal seperation of powers would help ensure that otherwise qualified ArbCom candidates are not rejected due to lack of Admin status. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't see why adminship is needed to be an arbie?-- Stemoc 01:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Callanecc and SilkTork, and probably some others as well. RfA is thataway.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I am an ArbCom candidate myself this year. However, I don't see a reason why admin rights should be granted to a non-admin ArbCom member. ArbCom members are not required to carry out administrative functions and the related guidelines (for ArbCom) are very clear. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. The requirements of a arb are a) listening well, b) thorough research, c) being fair. There is no need for mop privileges.  —EncMstr (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Not necessary to perform primary duties - as for deleted item review - there are plenty of others that can perform those types of investigations as needed. — xaosflux  Talk 04:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) 'Oppose not necessary, and I am sure that some non-admins are voted for because of their non admin status, summarily sysopping upon election would negate the reason they were elected. Given cases take weeks to months to complete, I see no urgency for an arbitrator specifically to take action immediately. --kelapstick(on the run) 05:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Oppose WP:RFA is that way. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, per The Rambling Man among others. Pedro : Chat
 * 1) Oppose Many people have explained why this is a bad idea. Per those guys. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, as there's nothing to prevent the arbitrators from seeking adminship individually if they wish. -- Katan gais (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, since I think the skills are somewhat different. Having said that, if an arbitrator decided during their term that they did wish to apply for admin status, I would want their application to be dealt with as fast as reasonably possible. Conversely, I think non-admins should be able to explain clearly in their application for arb why they have not yet sought adminship. I don't see not being an admin as a bar to being arbitrator, but I think if someone who isn't an admin seeks to be an arbitrator they shouldn't be allowed to seem as though they're using it as a backdoor to get admin status. I think this would tend to discourage outside-perspective candidates, not help them, since it would bring their motives into question. Blythwood (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) There is some logic in the argument that this would make it harder for non admins to become arbs. But my bigger concern is that while I can't imagine us electing an arb despite us not trusting them to block or unblock editors, I can see us electing an arb who wouldn't pass RFA because they were too extreme on the Deletionist/inclusionist scale. In an ideal world we would have a more nuanced voting system for Arbcom where people could say "Support for arb but not admin" or "oppose for arb but support for admin" and the crats could then weigh consensus and announce that candidate y had consensus for adminship despite only getting 43% for arb, whilst candidate z failed to get consensus for adminship despite being elected to arbcom. In absence of that best to leave as is.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose For  that  puts so succinctly above. [see #5.] — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 11:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose since that would be a circumventing of the WP:RFA process. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 12:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - There were some good points made in favor of this, but the vast majority of better points were made to oppose this. Particularly those of and . And no, I'm not an admin "closing ranks".  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I can certainly see that the ability to view deleted pages may be necessary for non-admin arbitrators, but as that right is granted as part of the oversight toolset then I don't think there's any need for the rest of the admin toolkit. If a page needs to be protected or a user blocked as part of some arbitration work then plenty of admins (including most of the clerks) would be happy to help. It does mean that an arbitrator may be able to pass a motion to ban someone that they cannot enforce, but admin arbitrators are able to pass motions to desysop people which they cannot implement and that isn't considered a problem.  Hut 8.5  13:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Different functions. Bluehotel (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose I don't see any need for a non-admin arb to have the block and delete bits. I could see an argument for the view-deleted-pages and view-deleted-revisions rights, as those might be relevant to the evidence in a case. I will add that should this proposal pass, I will be careful to vote against any non-admin candidate for arbcom, and i suspect others will do so as well. DES (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - Per &  arbcom actions requiring the tools are hardly time-sensitive.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 16:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - I agree with The Rambling Man. Oversight privileges would be more appropriate. -  t u coxn \talk 17:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per The Rambling Man, The Earwig and WereSpielChequers. Also, some editors actually prefer not be admins and they have still been trusted for years, so why force them? Anyone who could be an admin and wishes to be one, can usually pass WP:RFA anyway. Regards  So Why  18:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. There is no reason they can't go through the RfA process if they wish. But maybe some people are elected as arbitratos precisely because they aren't admins. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose per Kharkiv07. I suspect most or all Arbcom members could pass RfA if they wished. If not, I trust the community's judgment in those cases. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose If they want to be admins, then use RfA like everyone else. Don't need to be admins to be arbitrator, and being an arbitrator probably makes it easier to become an admin should they want to. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose:All admins should have to go through the RfA process. Catmando999   Check out his talk page!  22:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Duties of admins and arbiters require different sets of skills. I can name a couple admins which I will gladly vote for arbcom for their crystal clear no fools view on the ultimate purpose of wikipedia, and I can trust their interpretation of WikiLaw, but their human skills suck. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Trilobitealive (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose An arbitrator is a person who evaluates both (or the many) sides in a dispute and decides on a way of settling the dispute. No tools are required for weighing arguments and evidence and arriving at a conclusion. Enactment of the decision can - and should - be left to others. I'd even suggest that admins who become arbitrators should probably avoid using the tools while on the committee. If I may use a poor analogy, the judge and the executioner should not be embodied in the same person. --regentspark (comment) 01:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, creating a different group is a much better answer. Reusing an existing group just creates opportunities for confusion, especially if the community decides that arbitrators will not keep their group membership after leaving their role. We'd then have people who are "administrators" from a technical perspective, but not real administrators. L Faraone  02:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose As per Pharaoh of the Wizards, I believe the RfA process has higher standards, or at least meaningfully different ones. In addition Separation of powers is a thing in democracy, and I believe it has relevance here. Vynwood (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose, I don't see that it is strictly required to be an admin to be an arb, and I worry about the idea of someone who cannot get the bit through RFA getting the same access "through the back door" via ACE. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC).
 * 24) Oppose. The threshold for being an arbitrator is 50%. Any RFA with 50% or even 60% support would be closed as unsuccessful. sst✈discuss 13:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose - Not really necessary in my understanding. Any editor (either on the committee or not) who wishes to have the the mop can always go through an RfA.  Ya  sh  !   18:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Oppose - Not necessary, and I would actually prefer a non admin on Arbcom. Yossiea <sup style="color:Green;">(talk)  20:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong Oppose if there is a process to get admin rights, it should be used. They are not honorary badges. Wefa (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 28) Strong Oppose - not for a person, not for a group.  Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Thu 08:24, wikitime=  00:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose I share the concerns about enforceability of restricted use, which is clearly the community's preferred option. Also, we should not be adding people to ArbCom in such a way that their ArbCom conduct potentially creates additional cases - whichever venue may then be deemed appropriate for discussing them! Samsara 09:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 30) No. Actually I'd prefer no arbitrators to have admin permissions for the duration of their stint – a simple application of the principle of separation of powers. --Lambiam 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand that doctrine. All government ministers are members of the legislature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But arbitrators are not the equivalent of government ministers, nor do admins have a legislative function. Their functions are more similar to those of judges and correctional officers, respectively, occupations that have different functions and carry different responsibilities. Piling up the powers needed for each serves no defined need and only increases the risk for abuse. --Lambiam 14:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Conditional Oppose - Just giving them the admin bit doesn't seem necessary. Giving them the bit with restrictions would be preferable, but seems to be subject to power creep with respect to what is and isn/t ARBCOM-related work. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I see no evidence of a need for this. As many above have said, they can go through RfA. --Tt(talk/contribs) 04:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Good grief no. This is totally out of process. We have RfA for a reason, and there are tons of users who do not even know that, or when, ArbCom elections exist. Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose although I am troubled by the fact they are being appointed to a position that holds a higher level of trust and discretion needed. I may change my view but at a minimum if they are granted the tools it should be in a purely arb function, not general community work, deletions and such. Heavy restrictions should apply. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I can see no need for this, no rationale given for it, no problems with the current system that have been identified.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per JohnBlackburne, who put it nicely in a nutshell. If there are any problems with the current system, they should be mentioned in the lede of this page. At best, this RfC could maybe save some time spent on voting, but it is itself a huge cost to the community, given that it is announced to every editor. &mdash; Sebastian 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the subsequent sections such as  show that this change would add a host of complications for which we have no consensus yet. (I do commend the originator for thinking of this one, though.) &mdash; Sebastian 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I don't think non-admins should be arbs period. Having some arbs who can enforce decisions and restrictions via block, etc, while others can't would create a strange power/authority dynamic in many ways. Giving someone CU and OS rights before they've demonstrated they have the community's trust in an RFA is a bad idea to begin with.  INeverCry   09:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 1) If they wanted admin tools > RfA. 1a) If they tried and failed at RfA, this circumvents the RfA process, and one of the two should change.  2) It defeats the purpose of "non admin arbs"  3) If they need "private info", they have the super sekrit mail list. 3a) If they can't be trusted with that info - they  shouldn't be arbs. — Ched :  ?  16:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * raises a very good point. The proposal doesn't suggest what should happen in the entirely possible event that an editor fails RfA at some point in the past, but is subsequently elected to an ArbCom seat. This is certainly not much less likely than a non-admin being elected to an ArbCom seat given then well-known problems with the RfA process. A whole lot of prominent, well-liked people have failed RfA before. This issue in particular, coupled with all the other problems that have been brought up throughout the discussion here, strongly suggests that this proposal just isn't developed enough yet for RfC. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Not needed. We've had this discussion before, and I don't see new rationale/justification for granting them administrator rights. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose –  06:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The two positions don't actually have much in common, and provided arbs have a means to see deleted revisions, I see no reason arbcom elections should become a backdoor route for those (understandably) reluctant to run the RFA gauntlet. Even if this were to pass, any admin action taken by an admin who'd gained the bit by this route would be virtually certain to be challenged as out-of-process. (If an action is so undisputably right that nobody would challenge it, then there are plenty of other admins who'll be more than happy to enact it.) &#8209; iridescent 20:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I honestly don't think this is needed. I think to get administrator rights should be earned not given in election. Like Iridescent stated why should we give someone a backdoor route. Reb1981 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I think only admins should be eligible to be arbitrators. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I question the automatic bestowing the administrator right to arb com members. One reason is that their should be a 'non-administrator' representative on this committee thereby providing a needed and wholly different perspective. There is no cabal, but administrators do hang together a bit sharing some common viewpoints. I really would like to see a non-administator on arb com. Best Regards, <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Support retaining administrator right after leaving the arbitration committee

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN, you're completely right, and no one ever said otherwise. But that doesn't help your case, since election to the ArbCom is a far MORE stringent process than passing RfA.  Dozens of new admins are minted every year, but only about ten AC members, some of whom are not even new. ~ MD Otley (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * MD Otley, sorry, but you're incorrect. You're assuming elected arbs get in by going through a stringent process rather than getting in because they were slightly better than the totally unpalatable choices. If there are seven available seats and ten candidates, five of whom are "good", we're still going to have two arbs who were elected just because they got 50+1 of the vote. They would not be close to becoming admins with that level of support. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN, I want to thank you. Such crass displays of ignorance make it so much easier to make my point.  In the first place, even unsuccessful ArbCom candidacies can attract twice the support of a runaway-landslide successful RfA.  In the second place, it's not just my opinion, it's also the considered judgement of the WMF.  In the third place, it's becoming clear that the handful of "admirers" I've attracted will not be enough to sway the results of this poll question, so show a little mercy and stop trying to beat this man while he's down. :-) ~ MD Otley (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to stop, that's not the way to do it. Crass displays of ignorance, indeed. The number of support votes alone is not an indicator of community trust. If it was, a person with 900 supports and 850 opposes would be deemed "trusted". You should also look at WP:RFX200 and see how many times candidates with a high number of support votes were not promoted. By your criteria, these would be runaway-landslide successful. Second, the WMF clarification was needed because we needed to know they would allow such a situation if the community decided that's what it wanted. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbcom members have the ability to remove administrators. Are you calling the Arbcom process fundamentally flawed because someone who is not trusted by the community can remove someone who is? Banedon (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Banedon, your statement is not factually correct. A single arb cannot remove bits. He or she must work as part of a committee and it is that committee who will desysop if a majority vote dictates that happens. Others have also pointed out that you can trust someone to be a good arb but not a good admin (and vice versa). For example, I understand that in some (most?) parts of the U.S. people elect their local sheriff. Just because you think a person would make a good sheriff doesn't mean you think they would make a good mayor. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A single Arbcom member can't, but the implication from your argument is that it's possible for several or even the whole Arbcom to be comprised of untrustworthy editors simply because nobody else stood for the election. This implies that the Arbcom process is fundamentally flawed. I do not see how the sheriff / mayor example is relevant, but I'll say that if Obama is trustworthy enough to be elected President, he sure can be trusted with mayor powers as well. When there can only be one mayor, then it's a problem, but if there are no limits on the number of mayors then I don't see what the difficulty is. Banedon (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Banedon, if you cannot see how the Admin and Arb roles differ then yes, you will obviously disagree with my viewpoint. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Snide remarks do not make me more inclined to change my opinion. Banedon (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, ArbCom is basically Wikipedia's supreme court, while admins would arguably be part of the executive branch if we structured ourselves that way. So if we rephrase your point to be that "if Roberts is trustworthy enough to be the chief justice, he sure can be trusted as president (or sheriff, even)", then I must disagree. They are very different roles. I'm not even sure if this is about whether arbs are trustworthy enough to be admins, necessarily; it's a matter of them being mostly unrelated positions. — Earwig   talk  08:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant to be a snide remark. You think trusting a person with one set of powers means you can trust them with a different set of powers. I don't. We disagree and that's okay. I also want to make it clear that "trust" in this context doesn't just mean trusting you won't deliberately abuse your powers but means trusting that you will use your powers competently and judiciously. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b  style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Mdotley. Banedon (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support on the same terms as anyone else. ArbCom has far more voters than any RfC; clear consensus of the community.  Though, might want to add the caveat that they need to fill out their full term and not resign.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per MD Otley.  Rcsprinter123    (cackle)  11:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Obviously If we trust them to be arbitrators, we trust them to be administrators. Debresser (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) No reason why an ArbCom admin should be different from any other admins. sst✈discuss 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support As has been said many times before on this page, if they have been trusted to be in the Arbitration Committee, then they should be able to be trusted with sysop tools indefinitely. Looking through the facts, ArbCom is, as User:The Earwig said, the supreme court of Wikipedia. They make the rules, for the most part, via rulings. Thereby if they are trusted by the community enough to make the rules, then they should be able to enforce them as well, in my opinion. And when they leave ArbCom, in my opinion, they should keep admin tools, unless action is brought against them or they retire from Wikipedia. Simply stated, it's a hierarchy, in which from top to bottom it goes: Foundation, ArbCom, admins, editors. Since ArbCom is above admins, not below (they can topic-ban and de-sysop, etc.), then it follows that the admins' tools should be included with being on ArbCom.-- User_icon_2.svgyHS4 Mail-closed.svg Message box Edit-copy.svg Contributions 19:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Per above, if they have been trusted with arbcom status, they should retain their admin status. Also, they will have valuable insight from their time and will be a beneficial contribution to the admin community. Jab843 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose retaining administrator right after leaving the arbitration committee

 * 1) It should be only while serving. Afterwards, the person should go through RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree because they might need it for the duties but after that they no longer need that power and must do through Rfa like any other person who wants administratorHungryce (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)   Roger Davies  talk 21:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 21:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * Current practice permits leaving arbitrators to retain the CU and/or OS permission, provided that they will meet the activity requirements. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Self-evidently no. Richard75 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Definitely not. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Nope, per above opposers. Jus  da  fax   22:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Per above, RFA is a different process.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Absolutely not, an Arb election is not an RfA. BMK (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 1) Assuming they have not passed an RFA during their term of course. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Per my oppose to the first question. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, per Tryptofish. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Graham (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) This new process would circumvent the existing RfA process, which needs reform. Guy1890 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, just in case the proposal above passes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. If the privilege goes with the job, the privilege goes away with the job. John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Can't see a reason why ex-arbitrators should automatically be admins. —Kusma (t·c) 07:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) Run for an RfA. As simple as that.— UY Scuti Talk 09:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) 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)
 * 15) No reason to bypass RFA at all. GiantSnowman 12:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) I think all user rights granted as a consequence of election to ArbCom should expire upon leaving office, and that if they wish to keep any, community processes should be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Of course. If for some crazy reason we decide that Arbs require admin bits, they should lose them when they retire from Arbcom; no-brainer. If this were the case, I would also suggest imposing a restriction on active arbitrators running for RfA; have them run after giving up the tools like everyone else. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose  They should have it for arb duties only, with the understanding that once their term is over, they loose the bit. Kosh Vorlon   16:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Administrator is a lifetime appointment.  Committee terms are two years.  An RFA should still be required.   Hi DrNick ! 18:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose If the tools are granted for their work on ArbCom, then they should be removed after their term. An RFA after should be no problem. Mkdw talk 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose Admin RfA should be required. It is an open-ended appointment. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose This is exactly what the RFA process is for. — xaosflux  Talk 04:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 24) Strong Oppose WP:RFA is that way. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose if they got it for use as part for the committee then it would just be for that. RFA is open for nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Oppose. If they want to keep their admin status, they should either go through a Request for Adminship (and become a grand-fathered admin) or through another term at ArbCom (and become a two years more admin). Pldx1 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 27) Absolutely not. If the right is granted at all, it should only be for actions connected with arbcom activities, and those will by definition end when an editor ceases to be an arbitrator. DES (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose per DES (and others, I assume—his just happens to be closest at hand). This shouldn't be a backdoor into adminship. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. Without a full RfA I think this power should be limited to arbcom business, so if they're no longer on arbcom there would be no point in giving them the bit. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose if they want to retain these rights they should have no problem completing an RFA like everyone else.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose I opposed the initial proposal to automatically give ArbCom members Adminship. Making that Adminship permanent would only compound the error.Carl Henderson (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose Trilobitealive (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose L Faraone  02:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong Oppose - Giving the administrator user right to arbitrators for technical and practical reasons to be used for tasks related to their position during their tenure is perhaps reasonable. However, the aforementioned reason is no longer applicable once they leave the committee, and as such if they wish to retain the right they should be required to go through the proper forum (i.e. WP:RfA) like everyone else. Being an arbitrator requires a lower percentage of community approval than an administrator, the former is a vote, while the latter is consensus. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose - I am strongly opposed to bypassing the RfA system. However, if granted the bit (which seems highly unlikely), I'd not like to see the editor retaining the rights once they leave the committee. Hypothetically, if granted, I would not want the committee members to use the rights outside of the cases related to the ArbCom and if they want to have the bit or use it outside of the Arb-area, they can always go through an RfA later.  Ya  sh  !   18:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose - No. Even if there were an actual need to give admin to Arbitrators, that need would cease when they stop being arbitrators. Wefa (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose ArbCom election is no substitute for RfA. Samsara 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose If non-admins get the mop for their ArbCom duties, there is no reason for them to keep it after their term is done. They can always go to RfA if they want the mop, Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose, this should not create admin for life, being an Arb can make you a target and hugely unpopular. It will impress that if they desire scrutiny all of their duties including temp elected duties warrant that toolset for a longer time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose If the former Arbitrator wishes to remain an Administrator, they should submit to RfA. This would, hopefully, be pro forma and an easy pass if the Arbitrator left Arbcom in good standing. — Jkudlick t c s 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. IMO they should not be 'given' administrator, as they can and should perform their arbitration duties without it, as best they can, and as a community we evaluate their success after their term.  So it follows IMO, they definitely shouldnt keep it. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose –  06:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose, for the same reasons I oppose former arbs hanging on to their CU/OS bits. &#8209; iridescent 21:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose - no one needs to have that much 'power' and that is exactly what each user right actually represents. I respect those with experience, but we really need to contemplate term limits to ensure that dynasties don't develop. No - arb coms need to put some time between their committee activities and then let them face the RfA like anyone else. Best Regards, <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Support use of administrator right exclusively for ArbCom-related business
PS: Also, as noted by someone else in here, some Arbcom candidates are opposed for one reason or another to becoming admins and should not be forced into it. That's rather like making someone join a particular political party before they're allowed to accept a public office they've been elected to. Some of us would like to see some non-admins on the ArbCom for more even and, well, arbitrary representation and balancing of views/approaches. PPS: "Difficult to enforce" is not much of an oppose rationale; most of WP's rules are subjective and hard to enforce, and WP largely works on the honor system – very little "enforcement" of any kind happens here, and our most problematic admins are those few who wallow in the self-appointed role of "enforcer" and do precious little to actually work on the encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules  (Mrjulesd)</b> 11:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) IF they get it because of joining arbcom, and that's a big if, they should only get it for ArbCom business. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 15:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support absolutely.  Use it only for Arb business, nothing else.  Kosh Vorlon   16:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) If someone has not passed an RfA, they should not be doing RfA-granted tasks. They have been elected to ArbCom, so this is exclusively for ArbCom tasks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with this. I don't think it is easy to enforce but I think that these people are trustworthy enough to follow this ruleHungryce (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support If the bit is granted (which I oppose), use must be restricted. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Makes sense.  If they want it for more general use, then run for RFA as well as be elected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support If the bit is granted (which I oppose), Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Obvious support, but for a dissident reason. My opinion is that any Super-Mario should understand that Arbitrators, when backed by the community, are a kind of Hyper-Mario. Granting a temporary adminship to Arbitrators is another reminder of that. But, in return, each of the 15 Arbitrators should be sufficiently wise to no engage themselves in any action that could turn them in the role of an involved person. The every day business of enforcement will be better cleared by the 1332-15 remaining admins. Moreover, it appears that specific Arbitration business is sufficiently large to provide sufficient occupation to each Arb. Pldx1 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support If this right should be granted (which i tend to oppose), the only reason is to facilitate arbcom-related actions. If a person wants to engage in general admin work, wants "the mop" then a normal RfA should be held and passed. A person able to get elected as an arb ought to be able to pass an RfA in any case. If not, maybe such a person should not be an arb. DES (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, again per DES. I don't want to go down this road to begin with, but if we do, it should really be conditional adminship. None of this will prevent a user from getting the bit in the usual way. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. If they're getting the bit ex officio without an RfA, it should only be used ex officio. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) support If they really want to be an admin then they can go before an RFA like everyone else. Though I wouldn't be against allowing them to use them in exceptional circumstances outside of arbcom related business such as in similar situation where involved admins are allowed to use their authority while being involved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support As this would minimize the damage from an ill-conceived policy. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - If they are to receive the right because of their need of it as an arbitrator, it should only be used in that capacity. However some leeway should be given. For example viewing a deleted page (such as a deleted article) unrelated to their position would be alright, whereas blocking in a matter unrelated to arbitration enforcement would not. So the leeway I'm suggesting would be using the tool in a way that only affects them, for example: viewing a deleted page or actions within their own userspace would be okay; blocking a user or restoring a page in the article namspace to public view would not. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - per .  Ya  sh  !   18:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - if they didn't pass an RFA, but did pass an ArbCom election, then they should only use the admin rights for ArbCom work (unless, of course, they subsequently pass an RFA while sitting as arbs). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Since the ARBCOM election is not a venue in which several common concerns at RfA are checked and evaluated by voters, it's only appropriate to limit the granted powers to those directly related to their arb duties. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, this should be case related or AE related. On an interesting sidenote I think it might be worth pursuing limiting all arbs to this sort of tool use during their tenure. They can help patrol more AE stuff and focus on the cases and general community enforcement less. Way less stressful I would think. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Use of Admin rights outside of Arbcom duties has the high potential of causing an Arbitrator to become an involved party. The whole point of being an Arbitrator is to remain uninvolved and impartial. — Jkudlick t c s 16:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - Absolutely, that's why they got it in the first place. BMK (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Support This should go without saying &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose use of administrator right exclusively for ArbCom-related business

 * 1) 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. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for the same reasons I support granting Arbcom members admin tools. Banedon (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep it simple, it is either that they have the tools or they don't. This proposal would create unwanted grey areas. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Seems needlessly bureaucratic. If a sitting arbitrator wants to knock out a backlog at WP:AIV, why the hell not?  Not wanting a lifetime appointment to admin follow an arbiter's election --- that's a legitimate concern.  But this is a silly restriction.  If someone has administrator rights, they should feel empowered to use them to improve the encyclopedia.  WP:IAR trumps anyway.   Hi DrNick ! 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose: Impossible to find the line and it would just create drama (Is that block of user Foo linked to an admin action or not?)  If the discussions regarding unbundling admin tools are any indication, then it is also difficult to segregate out various tasks.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose: sounds tricky to police, bureaucratic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose: If we trust them, then we trust them. If we're not going to trust them, then don't give it to them. ~ MD Otley (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per MD Otley.  Rcsprinter123    (cackle)  11:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Very difficult to enforce. What exactly is "arbcom-related"? sst✈discuss 13:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose It would likely be extremely difficult to enforce, and when they enforce it, then what? A new election for a new ArbCom user? Slip-ups could easily happen and get an ArbCom sent to the recycle bin... It would probably cause turmoil in the Arbitration Committee, at least for a little while. And a "little while" could mean that some things happen that could easily have been prevented.-- User_icon_2.svgyHS4 Mail-closed.svg Message box Edit-copy.svg Contributions 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Would be cumbersome in practice. I think you'd need to create a separate account. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose all interations, subsets and permutations of the whole idea in its entirety. Trilobitealive (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Just to be clear - the right shouldn't be granted in the first place, so restricting a non-existent right is non-logical.  Risker (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. I think the oppose above to Should non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee be granted the administrator right? would cover this clause as well, but just in case this is seen as a distinct poll, I'll formally place my vote here for the reasons already given above.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Support adding edit filter manager right

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * I do sort of support this. What the above person said needs to be looked at but it could be useful to have this permissionHungryce (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as per zzuzz & seraphimblade. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – All tools granted to trusted Wikipedia editors should also be entrusted to Arbcom members. Banedon (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Per Zzuzz, Seraphinblade and Jules. Same reasons  Kosh Vorlon
 * 4) Support as I don't believe in unbundling tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber, one of us is reading this wrong. (It could well be me.) It sounds like this would unbundle one admin tool to give to Arbcom members, right? --BDD (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah strike that last bit. Still think it's a good idea. Brain multitasking fail. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Seems they will need these tools to do the job.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose adding edit filter manager right

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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 cops do not get to sentence you to death because they suspect you might be guilty.  Separation of powers is important. [This, by the way, hints at what is wrong with WP:AC/DS, especially when applied not to content disputes but to internal deliberation, as in WP:ARBATC.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Automatic? No. GiantSnowman 12:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Exactly per Callanecc. There was only one case this year (Kww and The Rambling Man) where the management of edit filters were of any relevance, and that seems to have been the only time in recent years. There is simply no need for arbs (admin or otherwise) to get the EFM bit by default – I even removed it from myself after the case was over. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with Callanecc.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Once again: They don't need it. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 19:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Use case is too small. We also had a discussion a while ago at WT:EF that went against granting EFM for 'view-only' purposes. Cenarium (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, not necessary for primary duties, and it can be requested if really needed. — xaosflux  Talk 04:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - it is too easy to stuff these up, and harm Wikipedia, so best to ask for it in the normal way, and have a normal assessment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Graeme Bartlett The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - A bad idea is bad in all its sub parts, iterations and permutations. What we do need is better screening process. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - Can be abused easily and can easily harm the site. Not saying that an Arb is not a trusted editor, but any human is capable of causing errors. It should only be given when asked by the member and after proper evaluations.  Ya  sh  !   18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - I doubt that sitting arbs need to see the hidden edit filters, and they can see the edit filter hits, and decide if the edits are problematic, without this right. I would consider adding it if any case where modifications of private filters were a major issue, but not otherwise. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Nope. Again, totally out of process. Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose My 4th vote, I don't see the point. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) It will not impede their role as arbitrators if they do not have access to the edit filter manager role. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose –  06:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose This is highly specialized. If you're an admin you can view all filters. Ask someone who knows what they're doing to modify a filter if needed &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:42, 22 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 not a good idea on reflection...., and make identifying arb edits more straightforward. I was thinking at first added after start view-only CU/OS bits, along with the other rights to make them useful (aka. deletedhistory, deletedtext, browsearchive), and abusefilter- log-detail view-private. Of course, we can always add/remove rights as needed.
 * Just noting that the user group would need abusefilter-view-private not abusefilter-log-detail. abusefilter-log-detail is default for everyone (including logged out). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Support (Arb user right group)

 * 1) As proposer Mdann52 (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I strongly doubt the WMF will allow CU and OS to be combined into a third user right so that probably won't happen. This user right might be useful as it would allow a non-admin arbitrator to see deleted edits if they didn't want CU and OS rights (which isn't out of the ordinary). I'd suggest  is added to this new group rather than   (as it is granted to everyone). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just reiterating that my support is only if CU and OS are not bundled into this 'arbitrator' user group (although I'm happy for the 'view' rights in both to be made a part of this group, if WMF is happy with it). I'd also prefer that this user group be granted and revoked by 'crats (rather than stewards) as there is nothing in the group which can't already be granted by the 'crats (if the view elements of CU & OS are included this will need to go to stewards, which I'm happy with). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Edited Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Should not duplicate CU and OS but be additional to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
 * 2) Support   bundle them together, easier to assign, easier to remove, if need be.  Kosh Vorlon   16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this. It probably will not happen but I think it would be good if I happenedHungryce (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This seems like a nicer idea -- less red tape. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support if and only if this package is viewing rights only, nothing that action can be taken with. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 19:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not technically possible AFAIK (with CU/OS at least). Mdann52 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the lines of  and  ; working under the assumption that  made that the WMF wouldn't bundle CU and OS, and that this would be for arbs who didn't want either, so those two along with ,  ,  , and  .  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 13:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine the CU and OS logs would be the same (and they'd need  as well), but it's a question we can ask Maggie. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I like the idea --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  19:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This would simplify the process of inaugurating Arbs, and the process of de-Arbing. It would also simplify the process of adding any other bits, especially if they are temporary:  instead of flipping for 15 separate accounts (or at least checking all 15) and then doing it again when it's no longer needed, it can be done with one move to turn it on, and one more to turn it off.  If it is technically feasible, I can't see why not. ~ MD Otley (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Sounds like a very practical idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Good idea.  Datbubblegumdoe  talk contribs  22:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seems very practical. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Finally! a proposition that makes sense. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -- we have granular rights for a reason: so we can assign them to semantically meaningful groups. L Faraone  02:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support When we talk about arbitrators needing administrative rights, I think, we mean that they need the passive parts of the bit, those that allow access to otherwise unviewable content such as deleted pages or oversighted/suppressed edits. I don't think arbs have any special need to block editors or delete or protect pages that admins in general don't, and indeed when those actions are taken as a result of ArbCom decisions it is usually the committee clerks, themselves admins, who take them. It should be possible to create a user group including just the passive aspects of the admin bit for non-admin arbs. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: Yes, this will provide strength to their work and autonomous environment.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: I'm new around here, but my first thought on reading the issue was "why on earth not just create a group with all the necessary provisions and be done with?". Unless there is a severe technical overhead, then this would be the standard solution. Can anyone explain why any other approach is even being considered? Almonaster (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Contrary to Cas Liber et al below, I think this would actually make things less complicated—all the rights arbs need would be under one flag, arbs would be easily identifiable, it would prevent arbs who don't use the tools showing up on the lists of checkusers and oversighters, and best of all it would mean we would never have to re-do this banal RfC. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Harry. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - On second thoughts - per and .   Ya  sh  !   01:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support-ish, if necessary: If some version of the proposal to auto-grant some (hopefully not all) admin bits to non-admin Arbs should gain consensus, then yes, these actions should trigger an edit-filter so they can be IDed and examined as such, for accountability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - a decent way to mark all arbs for software (potential edit filters, bots) to recognize; and to ensure that all rights necessary for arb work are granted to the arbs as needed, regardless of other rights. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I think this is a good idea. Would make the rights of arbitrators easily recognizable and identifiable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes - even if most of the rights are redundant with OS and CU. In theory a non-admin could run for ArbCom and decide they don't want CU and OS, but they want to view deleted contributions or do other things requiring sysop access.  It would be wrong to make them rely on a second arbitrator for such scut work. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - Having been a Microsoft SharePoint Administrator, I know how difficult it can be to cherry-pick rights to assign to individuals rather than bundling specific rights into one group and assigning that one group to an individual or to a defined group of individuals. — Jkudlick t c s 16:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Devs need sleep. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Support per the rationale given by .  INeverCry   09:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Good idea, if and only if they're all view-only, which as I understand is all they need. Doing it this way would seemingly lay all the other proposals above to rest, and makes this all a lot less complicated &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Tentative support depending on which rights are included in such a bundle. Generally i would support rights permitting viewing content, such as the right to view deleted content or to view revision-deleted content, but not any rights involving actions, such as the block right or the delete right. DES (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (Arb user right group)

 * 1) An interesting idea, for sure. My main concern is the thought that edit filters could be configured to allow only users with +arbitrator to edit particular pages --- this is a lousy idea.  Could it start us down the path to +arbitrationclerk?  More bureaucracy is rarely the answer.   Hi DrNick ! 18:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, this usergroup (as proposed with the current rights package) will only allow people with the right to view deleted material and view edit filters marked as private (which is the the same level of access as administrators without the EFM right). I can't see any reason for it to be assigned to admin arbitrators. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This could, just like any abusefilter user could make it so only they can edit certain pages. JUst because something exists doesn't mean it will be exploited. This could be useful (for example, on old case pages, or for where pages shouldn't be edited by non-arbs, but I agree it shouldn't be used in general). Mdann52 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose just leads to more complications with regards to rights, as if they aren't complicated enough. Also unnecessary, just give them the rights they need and that's that. Also could leads to a community versus ArbCom sort of divide. Also unnecessary, even if above proposals fail this would only be needed if a non-admin Arb gets elected. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Actually I'll abstain. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules  (Mrjulesd)</b> 19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Mrjulesd's comments on excess complications are correct, this would give more work for stewards (removing then readding CU/OS) for little gain. There isn't a single userright that this group would have that CU+OS wouldn't have, since 'abusefilter-view-private' will be granted to CU/OS per . deletedhistory, deletedtext, browsearchive are already in CU/OS. Cenarium (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that several supporters mention view-only, but this isn't what is being proposed. I think this had already been discussed, and arbitrators at the time stated that view-only CU rights weren't that useful, since to effectively investigate past actions, rechecks might have to be done. Cenarium (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But arbitrators regularly don't accept/want CU and OS rights (because of the perceived legal/privacy issues) so will be unable to see deleted text. I don't see how it would give more work for stewards, CU and OS would need to be granted separately and the 'arbitrator' user right could be granted by 'crats (who can already hand out the deleted text rights). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Crats couldn't give CU/OS view-only permissions, only stewards. Most often, arbs go on to stay CU/OS, or were already CU/OS before so rights would have to be switched on/off. Cenarium (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This strikes me as unnecessarily complicated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's minimizing complexity. By tagging users with their job role it is much easier to identify them to software, and to make sure they have whatever rights they need, today, tomorrow and in the distant future, to do their work efficiently.  Jehochman Talk 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think this idea is developed enough to stand proposal just yet. What rights are to be bundled? Why is this actually an improvement over just giving OS, CU, and maybe EF—user permissions that everyone already understands? Is this something that could be used to do an end-run around the consensus emerging above that arbs shouldn't automatically get the admin bit (say, by bundling tools given to admins within this new arb userright)? What safeguards are going to be put in place? Let's at least get a well-rounded working definition of what we're doing before we have a support/oppose-type discussion. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit filter manager allows them to change edit filters and there is already a consensus against handing out this user right just so that people can view private filters. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per .  Ya  sh  !   18:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Unnecessary. wctaiwan (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - administrator rights would be included in this arbitrator user right, making this a back-door way of bypassing RfA for non-admin arbs. Which is the first proposal, which I also oppose, and which seems to be broadly opposed at this point. So I oppose this for the same reason. Suggestions for unbundling various tools from the admin toolset for various reasons always fail, and I see no good reason why non-admin arbitrators should be above that consensus. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The only admin rights that are included are going to be a few "view-only" ones, not ones that can be used to take action. How will this allow a back-door admin, I'm struggling to understand the point. Mdann52 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as unclear and vague, and again, out of process. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose. This supposed "permission" assumes that each individual arbitrator him or herself personally seeks out the evidence to investigate a case. Nonsense. Private evidence can be submitted privately, and all arbitrators may review the private evidence. They do not each personally require access to checkuser in order to render appropriate decisions. They do not each personally require access to suppression in order to render appropriate decisions. They do not each personally require access to non-public edit filters in order to render appropriate decisions. Most importantly, they are not supposed to be going around using those tools hunting for evidence in cases. Despite the fact that all arbitrators have been admins to date and have already had the right to assume CU and OS, a significant minority never accepted them, and a much larger minority never used them for any purpose whatsoever. Indeed, it has been my observation that a lot of arbitrators are so bad at using the checkuser tool and interpreting checkuser results that they probably shouldn't be granted access to it at all without a specific community vote supporting it. Arbcom can and should ask experienced checkusers to collect and analyse applicable data and accept that as private evidence instead.  But basing decisions on checkusers carried out by people who rarely use the tools involved has proven to be a bad idea time and again.  Risker (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment sounds more like a rationale against automatically granting arbitrators checkuser and oversight, which is an entirely different issue. You're welcome to start an RfC on that subject; I could see myself supporting it, but the current practice is that they get them without doing anything more than asking for them (and all members of the current committee hold both). I know we share similar opinions on inactive checkusers and oversighters; I would have thought you would have supported this if for no other reason than to remove arbs who retain those tools for viewing purposes only from the lists of checkusers and oversighters, with the obvious advantage that somebody can go to that list and find at a glance somebody who can help them with their request. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are perhaps reading more into my oppose than is there. I strongly believe that there should be no such thing as an "arbitrator permission". I strongly believe that arbitrators should never be using tools to search for evidence. There is a huge amount of evidence that having checkuser, oversight and edit filter permissions does nothing for arbitrators to do the actual job of arbitration. Therefore, I do not believe that this package should be created or approved. I would probably separately also consider removing the arbitration committee from any rights or responsibilities in relation to checkuser and oversight (although I'd need to see some pretty serious ideas on CU/OS management absent arbcom first), but that is not what this is about. I would support removal of CU/OS permissions, with public report, if any arbitrator misused the tools; however, that's also a separate issue. Risker (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I think this is an interesting idea - however, what rights are envisioned as being part of the group? Bundling in CU and OS would be inappropriate as not all committee members wish to have those rights; it would be inappropriate to force someone to have a right they do not wish to have. Other than those rights, I'm not seeing what else is needed. As a number of ArbCom actions are actually carried out by clerks and/or admins, the notion that an ArbCom action needs to be marked as such by a group right should be more appropriately given to those who carry out ArbCom decisions or enforce them. In general the Committee decides on an action and others do the act. On those few occasions when a Committee member is carrying out an ArbCom action themselves rather than asking a clerk or other admin to do it, the action is always marked as such with an edit note that the action should not be undone without consultation with the Committee. That process works satisfactorily.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Deeply and Broadly Oppose, per Risker regarding this being unnecessary for the role of arbitrators, and per HiDrNick re potential for future misuse unless the purpose of this new role is clearly outlined and there is broad community engagement in the evaluation of the role before it is added. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Risker. BMK (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutral (Arb user right group)

 * 1) Neutral - If this part of the RfC passes, the community should be consulted and a consensus should be reached about: which permissions should be given, whether a member in good standing can retain the rights after leaving the committee (though it does state "held while sitting"), and whether the permissions the right grants are allowed to be used for non-committee related matters (potentially making the issue of retention after leaving irrelevant). This seems like a reasonable idea, almost went to the support column. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - nobody answered my question as to whether or not this is intended to be dependent on the above proposals or a separate, independent proposal, so here I am. If we need to create a new usergroup based on the results of the above, then yes, otherwise no because it's currently needless work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a similar thought myself that I didn't mention. Granting the administrator user right would be unnecessary if this right is created, as the needed permissions from the administrator toolbox would be included in this one. So conversely, yes, this would be pointless if consensus is gained to automatically give administrator rights to arbitrators. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 19:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This also has other bits (namely CU/OS logs) which aren't part of the standard admin toolkit, so I would argue it is still needed. Mdann52 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If they are granted admin rights then this proposal is mute, if they aren't then it would be needed. Though it could be an alternative for all arbs (admin and non-admin) who don't want CU & OS rights but still want to be able to see the logs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Add abuse filter rights to CheckUser and Oversight groups
Grant  to CheckUsers and Oversighters.

Support

 * 1) Support  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 16:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support a generally useful tool for both groups to have. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for oversight, neutral for checkuser. I can certainly see the benefit for oversighters in being able to see (not edit or manage) the details of private edit filters, but I'm less convinced of the need for checkusers but I'm not going to oppose that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I can see how it would be useful for oversight but I disagree with giving it to checkuser. There is no need and it might be bad for some of the people that get it from checkuser Hungryce (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When using the CU tool edit filter hits pop up in CU results, if they have triggered a private filter the CU can see the detail of the hit but not the conditions of the edit filter (why it created a hit). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support view rights.  Useful for both.  Have respect for people who don't want the ability to edit Edit Filters, just in case of Fat Finger Syndrome (even though it's extremely unlikely to accidentally edit an edit filter).  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
 * 2) View-only is OK for those usergroups. Cenarium (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for oversight checkuser, oppose for checkuser.  Seems unlikely we will actually have any non-sysop CU's or OS's anyway. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is a typo in your comment - did you meant "support for checkuser, oppose for oversight" or vice versa? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, corrected. — xaosflux  Talk 22:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support   being added to CU and OS. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support these people are already trusted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support seems very reasonable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support for both CU and OS. BethNaught (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support useful for members of the group. L Faraone  02:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) This seems fine, and a fair solution to the problem with the proposal two sections above. —  Earwig   talk  08:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support but only for Oversight. I don't think CheckUsers would use the abusefilter-view-private right other than to check abuse filters related to sockpuppetry. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 13:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - See no problem with this.  Ya  sh  !   18:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - this should be useful for both CU and OS, who are already trusted. -  t u coxn \talk 13:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) View only access for OS/CU to the edit filters seems reasonable. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) What on Earth does this accomplish? All checkusers and oversighters are administrators, per Foundation policy. This right is included in the adminsitrator bundle. Thus this accomplishes precisely nothing. If it's for non-admin arbs, then i) where would be the sense in them having CU and/or OS but not the admin package—the level of trust and responsibility required for tools that give access to sensitive private information is much higher than for admins so somebody who has the former should be given (or already have) the former; ii) if we're not giving them the admin tools, why this particular right? How often is it necessary for arbitrators to view the conditions of private filters?: and iii) it assumes that the person being given the rights has any idea what they're looking at. This looks a lot like a solution in search of a problem. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Philippe back in 2013, your first point is not true. I am not sure if things have changed since then. — Earwig   talk  00:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant it to refer to all existing checkusers and oversighters, and all checkusers and oversighters apart from this hypothetical non-admin arb whom we seem to trust unquestioningly with really sensitive stuff but not with the mundane day-to-day stuff. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This right had come up because it's the only thing that CUs/OSs without the admin bit (so non-admin arbitrators) can't see in the status quo. This right gives them full viewing privileges. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So give them the admin tools! Either we trust them with highly sensitive personal information (via CU and OS), in which case the admin right pale into insignificance; or we don't trust them with that fairly basic package, in which case why on this Earth would we trust them with CU and OS? Besides which, private edit filters have entered into ArbCom's purview precisely once to my knowledge and that was mostly tangential (ie, the ability to view the filter conditions would only have indulged idle curiosity). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But look above, clearly we don't want to give them administrator tools, but want them to have CU/OS. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did look above. And I think it makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This right isn't necesary for CS/OS work. Even if an edit filter manager is suspected of socking, you can check their edits, and don't need to check for hidden filter edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding CheckUser, the prolific socker filter is private so CUs wouldn't be able to see the conditions which are being met when it appears in CU results nor the log of hits for that filter, likewise the long-term pattern abuse filter, the abusive account names filter, the long-term block evasion filter, the possible open proxy filter, account creation throttle, and there are more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * CUs don't need to see the technical conditions to decide about potential socking, they need to look at the (attempted) edit to make a decision. Keep in mind that all filters have the potential for false positives (hits that are perfectly good edits); and many problematic edits aren't caught by any filter. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * CUs wouldn't be able to see the conditions which are being met when it appears in CU results nor the log of hits for that filter. Yes they would, because every single checkuser is also an administrator, and more than half also have the EFM right; and unless the appointment process or the Foundation's policy changes (neither of which is likely in the foreseeable future), every checkuser and oversighter appointed in the future will be an administrator. The only possibility of this being even remotely necessary is if a non-admin is elected to ArbCom, but the chances that they would need to view private filters as part of their duties in the eight days between getting elected and passing an RfA are infinitesimally small. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the newly elected non-admin arb would want to start an RfA. This proposal is primarily about putting the permissions which are actually used into the packages so that the rights are able to stand alone. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose If you take away the ArbCom aspect, I don't really see the point in this proposal. One one hand, if you are trusted enough to have checkuser or oversight, you can definitely be trusted to view private filters, but that doesn't mean it should be done. The admin bit is supposed to be a big bundle of permissions, which is why you get the abuse filter viewing rights. "Checkuser" and "oversight" are just that, checkusers and oversighters. I wouldn't expect to be able to do other things, too. If you also need to view/modify edit filters, than we'll assign you the edit filter manager user right. If this proposal is purely for the sake of arbitrators, let's just make the proposed arbitrator user group that includes the right to view private filters. CU/OS shouldn't entail more than what they imply to be &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  20:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

 * This discussion has been moved to the talk page. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed close
I believe that we have now had enough input to determine what the consensus is on the major issues, and the consensus in unlikely to change on any of them.

I propose closing this with a closing statement that all three members of the electoral commission agree upon. As a start, here are my personal conclusions:


 * There is a strong consensus (34:83, % support at the moment) against granting non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee the administrator right.


 * If non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee are given the administrator right, there is an overwhelming consensus (9:54, % support at the moment) against them retaining administrator right after leaving the arbitration committee.


 * If non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee are given the administrator right, there is a consensus (23:16, % support at the moment) that they should use the right exclusively for ArbCom-related business.


 * If non-administrator arbitrators are not granted the administrator right, there is a strong consensus (7:15, % support at the moment) against giving them the edit filter manager right.


 * There is a very strong consensus (26:9, % support at the moment) to create a new right for sitting arbitrators. However, this cannot be accomplished by an RfC alone, and thus should be sent to arbcom for comments and then sent to the WMF for approval.


 * There is an overwhelming consensus (26:9, % support at the moment) to add abuse filter rights to CheckUser and Oversight groups. However, this cannot be accomplished by an RfC alone, and thus should be sent to arbcom for comments and then sent to the WMF for approval.

My conclusion is that, according to the electoral commission mandate, we have determined the consensus of the community and thus have no decision to make or dispute to arbitrate. After the election closes, we will pass the final two items on to arbcom, and if arbcom approves, to the WMF, who will be asked to make the final decision on those two items.

Note: I am completely open to modifying the above if anyone has improvements they want to suggest. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why can't the last point be done by this alone? Anyone can file a request in phab as a site request based upon this RfC to get it done if they so wish. Mdann52 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. I will reword the above accordingly after I see what other comments there are. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The RfC has been open for just about a week and there's still a steady stream of editors who are weighing in on the proposals. A few proposals were even added a few days after, leaving a short time for others to comment on the matter. Would there be any objections to letting it run through the voting period and closing it before the results are tabulated? Also, I agree with Mdann52. Should the proposal pass to add the permission to the OS and/or CU right, we don't have to go through ArbCom because the WMF will enact the community consensus. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also we're still waiting for Maggie to let us know if WMF will allow CU & OS to be unbundled as proposed. If they're happy with that the closer (or someone else) can file a phabricator request regarding the two user groups (there's no need for it to go to ArbCom). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I strongly object to any delay in the close. People cannot make informed votes if they don't know what the effects of their vot4es will be. If this RFC is left open now, and later closed so as to grant any rights to arbs based on their elections, I will object to the results of the election, and request that it be re-run unless this RFC is closed so as not to effect those elected in 2015. DES (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, this RfC isn't up to the Electoral Commission to close. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * An RfC can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, and neither you or any of the members of the Electoral Commission are uninvolved, so isn't up to any of us to close. This is, of course, well known be everyone involved including me, which is why I proposed a close. That is and has always been the limit of what I can do towards closing any RfC where I have made a comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoever formally closes this, a close is needed promptly. The Election is now open, and people need to know what they are and are not voting for. If any additional rights are to be granted to newly elected arbs, people should take this into account when they vote, which they can't do if this RFC is not closed. DES (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't need a close. Nobody disagrees with my conclusion above, which is that no additional rights will be given to the new arbs when they start their term. Finding out what the community wants us to do regarding that was the reason this RfC was posted, and at 37 support and 87 oppose, the answer is crystal clear and extremely unlikely to change because of late !votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)