Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

and only if
I think the "and only if" phrasing in the three questions here is unnecessary and only adds confusion. For example, the question,
 * If and only if non-administrator arbitrators are granted the administrator right, should they be permitted to retain the right after leaving the committee?

is better just asked as
 * If non-administrator arbitrators are granted the administrator right, should they be permitted to retain the right after leaving the committee?

The intent of using "and only if" seems to me to just underscore that the outcome relies on the arbs being granted the admin right; that is, it's a redundancy for emphasis. If that's the case, the wording is superfluous and unwanted.

I'm going to remove the phrase. If I am wrong and it is adding some meaning I am missing, please explain how. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

how to vote?
hello this is megaattacksquid. i don't know how to cast my vote. someone please tell me. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by megaattacksquid (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 November 2015‎ (UTC)


 * For each question you want to participate in, go to either the Support or Oppose section, and edit the section, and then add your rational using a similar format to the previous people. I see, however, that you are brand new to Wikipedia. An informed opinion on these questions seems to me to require considerable on-wiki experience so it seems like a bad idea for you to actually "vote". While you are welcome to contribute, you may also wish to consider abstaining from comment unless there's a good reason. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Third question poorly specified
Given the way the question is phrased, the replies should be "restrict" and "do not restrict", or "use exlusively" vs. "use broadly". Samsara 09:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I recently changed the phrasing with . I disagree that the phrasing is poorly specified because I think the meaning of the current phrasings perfectly matches the intended meaning. They may however be poorly worded, which is a matter of opinion rather than meaning. I can make the reply phrasing match the question phrasing if you like. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jason Quinn (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

General discussion
Although I've never had any dealings with Arbcom, I've always supposed that those on the panel are admins themselves. Many arbitration disputes involve the actions of admins, and I don't believe that those who haven't experienced the stresses of the mop are qualified to judge those of us who have. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence to the claim that the mop is necessary to perform arb work? It seems the arbs just pontificate on cases and to my mind that doesn't require any extra buttons. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What about the admin IRC channel? NE Ent 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't decided how to vote on the main question, but surely, if we think an ArbCom election is a sufficient vote of confidence to give someone the mop, it must be a real mop: no restrictions on when, where, or how they use it. After all, it's no big deal, right? ~ MD Otley (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are we saying being elected to Arbcom is having community's confidence to have the mop? --Neil N  talk to me 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what the whole discussion is about, isn't it? That's why I said "if". ~ MD Otley (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN, to answer your question, WMF Legal says that being elected to arbcom is sufficient to have the mop.Special:PermanentLink/582331520 Of course "WMF legal" is not the same thing as "the community", which is why we are having this RfC. If the RfC ends up giving us a clear consensus, then we three electoral commissioners will add our stamp of approval to the decision of the community and we are done. If there is no consensus, the decision will be made by the electoral commission. See Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the electoral commissioners to endorse (or indeed evaluate) the consensus of this discussion, but I don't think you have a mandate to substitute your judgment on this issue if there is no consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2015 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. However, members of the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion." Source: Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The remit of the commissioners is strictly limited to the elections, and does not include determining who is granted +sysop. If this discussion ends in no-consensus, I will not be adding +sysop to any non-admin Arbs who are elected. I would be surprised if other bureaucrats feel differently. There is also the (separate) question of whether it is appropriate for the commissioners to evaluate the outcome of the discussion given the participation of at least one member, per Pharaoh of the Wizards below. WJBscribe (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I must emphasize the theoretical nature of this entire discussion. It may happen that no non-administrator gets elected. It may happen that the RfC gives us a clear consensus that we can put our stamp of approval on. It is highly probable that I will get my wish and that the electoral commission will have nothing to adjudicate.
 * If arbcom had wanted the Bureaucrats to to adjudicate any disputes during the election, they would have said so. You are free to bring it to arbcom for a clarification but I would predict that the result will be them informing you that they meant what they said when they put the words "to adjudicate any disputes during the election" into the electoral commission mandate. You are, of course, free to file an arbcom clarification request to see if my prediction is correct.
 * As for the issue that you keep raising about one of the electoral commissioners voting on a RfC question (they are questions, not proposals) I am not going to publicly criticize a fellow commissioner, but if that specific RfC question ends up before us I will start a discussion about recusal. The odds are that that specific RfC question will be answered by consensus at the RfC stage and that your complaint will be moot.
 * As for your opinion about how consensus works on Wikipedia, I believe that you have a subtle misconception. Consensus tells us what to do in various situations where there is no consensus. I won't repeat the list here, but the basic principle is that if there is no consensus the status quo remains. There is no status quo regarding arbitrators who are not administrators. We cannot simply say "well, there is no consensus so we will do exactly what we did the last time a non-administrator was elected to arbcom" because no non-administrator has ever been elected to arbcom. Someone has to decide, and that someone is the electoral commission, according to our mandate to "adjudicate any disputes during the election".
 * Finally, can you please pick one venue? You are raising essentially the same points here and at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the electoral  commissioners has posted a proposal [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-administrator_Arbitrators_RfC&diff=690908181&oldid=690908160 here in this RFC] hence it would be WP:INVOLVED if the electoral commission now closed it given that this is a contentious RFC.The election commission deals solely with issues relating  only to that particular election  in this case the 2015 Arbitration election .This is a policy change which will affect even future elections it is beyond the scope of the Election commission and only the decision of the community will stand whether it is Consensus or No consensus as is the case with any RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have said several times. it is my hope that the electoral commission will end up having nothing to do. If we do end up making a decision, I intend on adding the provision that it is only in force for this election and that we expect there to be a well-defined policy created the usual way for future elections. As for the involement you mention, if that particular question comes up before the commission, I will start a conversation about recusal. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Many arbitration disputes involve the actions of admins, and I don't believe that those who haven't experienced the stresses of the mop are qualified to judge those of us who have." Let me stress that I strongly oppose this line of thinking – a "jury of your peers" means a jury of your fellow human beings, not just the people in your field of endeavor... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. When I read that quote, I thought of a jury of 12 cops judging the actions of a cop. The community chooses Arbs, not the "community of admins". That is one of the major problems with RfA.... The old "when I went through RfA, we had to live in shoebox in middle of road", so I'll make sure this candidate has to "lick road clean with tongue"... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, your analogy between Arbcom and a jury is fallacious. A jury, at least in the UK, is a panel of twelve members of the public, picked at random, who generally have no choice but to attend, and most importantly, are not expected to have any background knowledge of the proceedings. Arbcom, on the other hand, are volunteers, selected by users, and are expected to have a full working knowledge of Wikipedia and its procedures. In my opinion, you cannot have that full knowledge without some admin experience. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting that many of the support-bangvotes are either arbcom members, or people who help draft arbcom case-pages. I get the vibe here that having non-admins sitting as arbs, will have appearance-of-a-caste-system, per e.g. the comment by User:NativeForeigner. Thus, to promote committee-unity and internal harmony, and avoid factionalism, the people closest to the arbcom mechanisms are in favor of having all sitting arbs be equals. But this is going to have the opposite effect: it is already nearly impossible for a non-admin to become an arb, since many arbcom voters will vote against non-admins simply because they are not yet admins. By passing a rule, that sitting arbs get automagically handed the mop, this exact same voter-mindset will be exacerbated: henceforth non-admins will get even less support, because an additional slice of the arbcom-electorate will not want those non-admins to become admins via the arbcom-election route! So in practice, unintended consequences will be the outcome. I suggest that the folks voting support, on the basis that they want all arbs to be seen as equals, should carefully consider whether they are making it harder for non-admins to have a shot in the first place. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see a few issues:
 * What admin powers are needed to perform the job?
 * If those exceed CU + OS + whatever else the editor has do we want to provide the specific rights as part of an "arb" rights bundle, or do we want to provide the admin bundle?
 * Do we want to place additional restrictions on how these powers are used? (E.G. Arbitration related purposes only.)
 * In any of the above cases should they be kept post-arb? (Could be still with limitations to use.)
 * It seems to me that we need to answer these questions in order. The people who can best answer question 1 are arbitrators and former arbitrators.  I am not convinced by Roger's claims that (a significant part of) the Admin bundle is needed, but I am more convinced than if he had said nothing.

(Note: I am one of the candidates who, if elected, this would affect. I don't personally see a need for the block button, one of the most contentious.)
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC).


 * I am a current candidate. I am not an admin. It says clearly on my user page that I do not wish to be one. In my normal editing I have no need to be one.
 * If elected to ArbCom I appreciate that a solution has to be found to ensuring that I can see the things I need to see. If that is granting me the mop and bucket for the duration of my appointment, so be it. After the (potential) appointment ceases I do not want the mop, nor the bucket. I expect it to be taken away without ceremony, notice or discussion immediately on the expiration of my term. If I ever decide I want it I want to apply through the unamusing RfA process.
 * I have no intention of using the toolset except as part of my (potential) ArbCom duties.
 * We seem to be discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Surely, instead, the purpose is to build an encyclopaedia? Fiddle   Faddle  10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unamusing? Mostly unamusing, perhaps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

Comment -- I have started a separate proposal here to grant  with the CU and OS packages. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 13:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be satisfied if all the "View" rights that come in the administrator package are also bundled into CU/OS. I want to be sure that my arbitrators can have a full view of all the facts available when making a decision.  Can somebody knowledgeable confirm whether all these rights are in the CU/OS bundle (?). Second, what about arbitrators who don't get the CU/OS bundle?  Do all of them get it?  I know that in the past there were arbitrators who weren't given these rights.  Are we now to the point that nobody gets appointed unless they are allowed to have these?  Jehochman Talk 14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Viewing private abuse filters is the only thing CUs and OSers can't see (hence ). It's up to individual arbitrators to decide whether they want CU or OS, and I think it should remain so. If they don't have those two then they can ask other arbitrators to give them the required data. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question on "create new right for Arbs" proposal: is that proposal meant to be an if-and-only-if proposal as well? As in, create the new right iff arbs are granted admin bits? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question – has WMF weighed in on this? Apologies if this was answered already. It's my understanding that WMF opposes giving viewdelete rights to any user except those who have passed RFA or "an RFA-like process", and giving CU to non-admin arbs seems contrary to that. Has anyone asked? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)
 * Yes, it was answered affirmatively couple years ago; see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates. NE Ent 17:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question How about if we make no one on ArbCom admin? Wouldn't that also solve this inane dispute? --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 18:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So someone elected to ArbCom would lose their admin rights for the duration of their service on ArbCom? A really interesting proposal. Might make people decide what they want to do -- be an admin or be and Arb. YBG (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it would be even better if they had to re-apply to get them back at the end of their term. ensure accountability and that they actually took their job seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to work as people upset about them prior to taking seat would try and find reasons to oppose them after, regardless of ArbCom performance. Samsara 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. In any case, each member of Arbcom should restrain herself from performing any admin action (like blocks etc.) during her term. Performing first line actions is the task of the roughly 1300 admins. Moreover, first line actions will be probably better received when enforced by a random low-profile admin. The task of the 15 Arbs is to take last instance decisions over what has not been solved in first instance. And it appears that these "last instance decisions" provide a sufficient workload to populate the agenda of the Arbs. Pldx1 (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question Forgive me if this has already been asked, but has someone ever been elected to ArbCom that wasn't an admin? If so, I'd be interested to hear from them about any challenges they face. Secondly, do we have any data about how admin candidates versus non-admin candidates track in the elections? The whole issue of "trust" has been brought up and I'm curious to know if non-admin candidates are "trusted" less than admin candidates. I always assumed being an admin was a pre-requisite for being on ArbCom which I see now isn't true. Perhaps its always assumed that the role of ArbCom has been more important than being an admin or bureaucrat (not that the people are more important, but the posting is a more important one) so I'm surprised to see that some consider it less trusted considering the information they have access to and the decisions they need to make. While the consensus margin is lower, that doesn't infer less trust. It's likely a dynamic of how visible the ArbCom election is and how important it is to select the right individuals. Mkdw talk 18:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No non-admin has ever been elected to ArbCom on the English language wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst true, a non-admin has been appointed to ArbCom on the English language Wikipedia before (see further below). However, the roles and responsibilities of ArbCom back in 2004 were rather different, so I'm not sure how much Nohat's experience would assist us with today's question. WJBscribe (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec):Mkdw, I haven't checked every ACE to make certain but I've asked this question in the past and been told, "No, a non-admin has never been elected to ArbCom". So we are breaking some new ground here.
 * I'll also make the point that there was a sizable decrease in voters in 2014 so the percentage of active editors who participate in the election is a small, small % of editors. So, who is elected is really determined by who shows up to vote. A truism, to be sure but on the mark in this case. The arbitrators who get elected reflect the tastes, values and opinions of the small group of editors who choose to vote. This is one reason there was a discussion on how to get a higher turnout out for the elections this year. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing for compulsory voting, like there is for government elections? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the replies. It seems this is indeed uncharted territory. If anything this RFC will at least reveal how people feel about levels of trust between admin and non-admin candidates even at some of the more visible postings. I further worry that the recent trend in RFC where the community is always divided on something will be no different here. It seems like its more and more difficult for the community to agree on anything with a strong majority. Mkdw talk 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that arbcom members and admins have wildly different percentages needed to pass has nothing to do with amount of trust. It is a simple reflection that the criteria for arbcom was essentially decided by Jimbo, and he decided to set the same bar that is used for, say, electing a US president or for US supreme court decision. The bar for admins reflects community consensus, which is clearly to set the bar far higher than that used in pretty much every real-world election. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * It was not just Jimbo that decided that arbitrators need more "support" votes than "oppose" votes in order to be elected, rather than some higher or lower proportion of votes. For several years in a row this subject was also discussed in the pre-election RfCs.  (I'm going to make a rough guess here that the first time was the first year that voting for ArbCom was made "private", and the last time was probably 2013 or 2014.)  Each time, proposals were made to increase the threshold, to 60 or 65 percent and sometimes higher, and a few times there were also proposals to eliminate the threshold entirely and just declare elected the candidates with the highest percentages, up to the number of positions to be filled.  (Which is how it has worked in practice anyway; so far there have always more than enough people with more-supports-than-opposes to fill all available seats.)  I believe that, one year, it was very close between "majority" and 60 percent (or thereabouts), but ultimately the outcome has always been to required a "majority", no more, no less.  So it was not just a Jimbo decision, it was a community decision as well.  Personally, I do not think this has much to do with what rights should be given to non-admin arbitrators.  If such a person is elected to ArbCom, it means the community wants them to have the rights necessary to do their job as an arbitrator, during their term as an arbitrator.  To my knowledge, that means the ability to "see" things that the other arbitrators can see, which are the things that admins, CU's and OS's can see, in order to have full access to the evidence in every case.  (I see no need for them to have full admin rights, or any "extra" rights after their ArbCom service ends.)  However that is worked out logistically is secondary, and I think it is probably within the ArbCom's inherent powers to grant all rights to its members that are necessary to do their jobs.  Apparently this is all fine with WMF as well. Neutron (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that in order for someone to gain access to non-public information (such as what comes from CU/OS rights), the Foundation among other things requires users to be administrators or go through an "identical" process. Does the Foundation consider the ACE process to be "RFA-identical" when it comes to the possibility of handing out these permissions? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Philippe said last year that they do, yes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, that seems pretty clear cut. Thanks!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Question (another one): is this intended to be retroactive? As in, if this passes, all sitting Arbs are immediately given (whichever bits we determine here)? Or will this only apply for future elections? I ask because if it's intended to be retroactive then this will affect my decision criteria for Arbcom elections this year. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the only rights under discussion here that not all of the current arbitrators have are edit filter manager and view private edit filter details - and those can be self-added by any administrator, which all current arbitrators are. Nobody is proposing giving rights to post-retirement arbs. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that is on the table, but anyway that's not quite what I meant. There are no current non-admin arbs, but say one is elected in December 2015. If this RfC has not concluded (I'm not sure about the timelines) but concludes later in the affirmative, will that non-admin be retroactively granted admin rights? That's what I mean when I say it would affect my vote. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The decision will be made by the electoral commission, and we will make it before any newly-elected arbitrators start their term. This RfC was posted so that the electoral commission can rubber stamp any question where there is a clear consensus. We don't have to wait for the RfC to close; our mandate is to find and follow the consensus of the community wherever we can and to make a decision and adjudicate the question in cases where we are unable to determine a consensus. We have already made the decision as to which three stewards will act as scrutineers (we picked stewards who have had minimum involvement in the English wikipedia) and we will make decisions on any unforseen issues where there isn't time to determine community consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this RfC is titled Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC and thus only applies to arbitrators who are not administrators. All sitting and past arbitrators are/were administrators and thus this RfC does not apply to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, despite your best efforts, you've answered my question, so thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The decision will be made by the electoral commission. This seems preposterous. Electoral commission has her say about elections (e.g. saying that Pldx1 should have created 21 more redirects or done any other clicks). Nothing more. Ruling about the elected Arbs belongs to WMF and community and surely not to an electoral commission. For what I understand, the matter was already settled by WMF in some cryptic declaration, while the community written rules for the current election were so poorly drafted that such an elephant was missed. And therefore the only remaining question is as follows: is the community willing to over-rule the matter or not? A good compromise could be a community motion stating that "each Arbitrator should focus on her job and therefore refrain herself from performing any first level admin action during her term at Arbcom. Pldx1 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this decision is within the scope of the electoral commission. (And I am speaking as one of the people who pushed for the creation of the commission in the first place, 4 and/or 5 years ago.)  I think it would be a good idea for the commission, as a group, to close this RfC, absent any commissioners who expressed an opinion.  But, as indicated above, I also don't think this RfC is necessarily the right way to decide this issue either.  I think the ArbCom should simply give any newly elected non-admin arbs all rights that they need to see all of the evidence and communications that the other arbs see.  From what I read above, this would mean CU, OS and possibly the edit-filter right. (I am not familiar with all of the nuances of user-rights, and I don't need to be.)  The new arbs should not be authorized to use these rights to "do" anything, simply to see what they need to see.  The rights should be granted on the day the new arb takes office and removed immediately after their term ends.  Whatever category/ies in this RfC my opinion corresponds with, you can count me in support.  Neutron (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the electoral commission ends up having to make the decision (we all hope that this ends up with us having no decision to make) that means that I will have been unable to ascertain the consensus of the community. In that case I fully intend to query the arbitrators and the bureaucrats and see if there is a concensus among either of those groups -- again doing everything I can to avoid the electoral commission having to decide.
 * That being said, you are wrong about whether this decision is within the scope of the electoral commission. Our mandate is clear:
 * "The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2015 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. However, members of the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion." Source: Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission
 * Again, I must emphasize the theoretical nature of this entire discussion. It may happen that no non-administrator gets elected. It may happen that the RfC gives us a clear consensus that we can put our stamp of approval on. It is highly probable that I will get my wish and that the electoral commission will have nothing to adjudicate. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our mandate is clear
 * Nonetheless, you seem to be confused.
 * This isn't part of the election, Guy. It's an RfC – a community discussion that any editor in good standing can initiate, requiring no "stamp of approval" from a special panel.
 * The Electoral Commission's role is to ensure that the election runs smoothly, not to enact policies impacting it (or anything else). The Arbitration Committee itself doesn't possess authority to dictate policy, let alone to assign such a responsibility to someone else.  Wikipedia's policies are established via community consensus or official WMF determinations.  The Electoral Commission is not empowered to substitute its own judgement.
 * You claim that "if there is no consensus, the decision will be made by the electoral commission", though you've stressed that this is hypothetical and likely won't occur. In my view, that's of secondary importance to the broader issue: your inclusion in a body whose function you misunderstand.  —David Levy 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an RfC posted by the electoral commission after discussion about how best to ascertain the consensus of the community. Can you think of a better way for us to determine consensus and thus avoid having to make a decision?
 * Feel free to request a clarification from arbcom if you think I am misinterpreting "to deal with any unforeseen problems" or "to adjudicate any disputes". I would suggest doing it quickly, because we are going to make the decision on schedule unless told not to by someone in authority. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, can someone tell me whether my proposal (allow non-admin arbs to "see" everything that the other arbs can see, but not allow them to "do" anything non-admins can't do, and not make them admins, with the "extra" rights to be withdrawn when their term ends) matches any of the existing options in this RfC? I can't figure it out for myself.  I don't know the difference between an abuse filter and an edit filter or a filter log or any of your other newfangled lingo. I look at this as someone would if their degrees and professional experience were in writing, political science and law (which, by remarkable coincidence...)  What is important is the concept that any editor in good standing who is elected by the community to be an arbitrator should be able to do their jobs without having to ask another arb to send them "secret" information (which, by the way, would raise issues of its own.)  The lines of code are secondary, or at least they should be.  Added:  And I don't really care who makes the decision, as long as you make the right one. :) Neutron (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that exact combination is in the RfC, now that you have brought it up it will certainly be considered as an option if the electoral commission ends up having to make a decision. Certainly at least parts of it have strong consensus as seen in the existing RfC questions. And of course we aren't some power-hungry group trying to walk all over everyone; if we can't determine what to do through the RfC we can still ask the arbs, crats, or even the stewards to weigh in. There is no way that the electoral commission is going to make a decision that goes against what the majority of crats or arbs think should be done. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a better way for us to determine consensus and thus avoid having to make a decision?
 * You seem to have missed my point. I'm not challenging the RfC's validity or utility.  I'm noting that the Electoral Commission lacks the authority to "make a decision" of that nature.  I have no doubt that you're acting in good faith, but I don't know what gave you the idea that this established an elite body of editors with the unique power to enact policies lacking consensus.
 * Feel free to request a clarification from arbcom if you think I am misinterpreting "to deal with any unforeseen problems" or "to adjudicate any disputes".
 * The Electoral Commission's mandate is "to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2015 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election" (emphasis added). This isn't the election, nor does it pertain to an unforeseen problem or dispute.  It's a series of questions to be answered by the community.  I'm at a loss as to why any sort of clarification is needed.  —David Levy 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? You forsaw the problem of non-administrators being elected to arbcom and what user rights they should have? If so, why didn't you bring this up back when you forsaw it so that we could take our time determining the policy in the usual way instead of the electoral commission having to decide before the new arbs start their terms? Or is it that you do agree that it is an unforeseen problem but are of the opinion that the problem of non-administrators being elected to arbcom and what user rights they should have has nothing to do with the election? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I question whether a "policy change" is even necessary here. As far as I know, ArbCom has "always" (meaning, far back enough so for our practical purposes today, it is "always") given its new members the CU and OS rights, unless the new member declines those rights.  One or both of those rights apparently include the ability to see deleted edits.  (Like I said before, I am unschooled in the specifics of user rights, except for the one I have, which is reviewer.)  The WMF says it is ok to give the right to see deleted edits to arbitrators who are not admins, because election to ArbCom is a rigorous enough community selection process, or whatever exactly they said.  So if someone gets elected to ArbCom, ArbCom just does what it always does, which is to give (or arrange for the appropriate functionaries to give) CU and OS to those arbs, same as everybody else, without "discriminating" as to whether that person is an admin.  So far there's no change to anything, and there's no reason to expect that ArbCom would do anything other than what I have just described.  One thing that would be a potential change would be if a new non-admin arb were also given some other fairly minor (as I understand it) rights having to do with this-or-that-filter or whatever, which is necessary to "see" some things that CU/OS don't allow you to see.  Personally I think the ArbCom could also do that, because allowing people to "see" those things is "in the spirit" of why arbs are given CU/OS in the first place.  All the arbs elected so far have not needed to be given these "minor" rights because, as admins, they already had them.  Personally I think this is still within ArbCom's power.  The one thing that probably isn't within ArbCom's power is to actually make the person an admin, either permanently or temporarily.  But it seems pretty clear from this RfC that that most likely isn't going to happen anyway..  As for whether the EC can decide this... well, I gave my opinion above, but then Guy said the EC would consult with the arbs and the bureaucrats, so I think it will work out reasonably.  ArbCom is a little busy right now with other things, some of their members are busy running for re-election, some of their members are virtually lame ducks, etc. etc. so they probably don't need to be given another thing to be the primary decision-maker on at the moment.   Neutron (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this RfC was originally within the jurisdiction of the electoral commission but since then adding additional rights to the CU & OS packages has been proposed. That said, I've no objection to one or more editors on the commission closing it but they shouldn't close it 'as the commission'. Neutron, that's mostly correct, however this RfC is now addressing broader issues: 1. Regarding the edit filter there is a prior consensus against giving out the 'edit filter manager' right purely to be able to see private filters as it also allows the person with it to edit the filters. 2. The new user right being proposed also allows arbitrators (including non-admins and admins) to see the CU & OS logs, deleted edits and private filters if they don't want the CU and OS userrights (which happens reasonably regularly). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? You forsaw the problem of non-administrators being elected to arbcom and what user rights they should have?
 * The mere existence of differing opinions as to how something at Wikipedia should be done isn't a "problem". It's a normal part of how the site operates.  (Otherwise, practically every Wikipedia process has this "problem".)
 * If so, why didn't you bring this up back when you forsaw it so that we could take our time determining the policy in the usual way instead of the electoral commission having to decide before the new arbs start their terms?
 * What was there for me to "foresee"? The matter of whether ArbCom members require the admin bit has been raised on multiple occasions.  Were you under the impression that the topic has never arisen before?
 * Or is it that you do agree that it is an unforeseen problem but are of the opinion that the problem of non-administrators being elected to arbcom and what user rights they should have has nothing to do with the election?
 * As noted above, I disagree with your definition of "problem". Additionally, I'm troubled by your apparent belief that it's within the Electoral Commission's purview to hand down "decisions" regarding any and all aspects of the election.
 * As noted at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission, "the Electoral Commission is not responsible for logistics of the election". Its purpose is to help ensure that the election goes according to plan (and intervene if it doesn't), not to establish the plan.
 * In case you're unaware, this isn't a Wikipedia-specific setup; it's a real-world concept. Such a body is "charged with overseeing the implementation of election procedures", not enacting the policies under which they exist.
 * Why, in your view, would such an enormous responsibility fall upon a three-person panel assembled via minimal discussion? Multiple editors have advised you that you've misunderstood the Electoral Commission's role, which should give you pause.  Is it more likely that a bureaucrat (with eight years' experience as such) has a "misconception" about "how consensus works on Wikipedia" (as you stated above) or that the confusion lies elsewhere?  —David Levy 00:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask arbcom to clarify what they meant when they wrote the EC mandate. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to cite text from the arbitration policy (or any other Wikipedia policy) through which the ArbCom derives the authority to create new policy by fiat or assign such a responsibility to others. —David Levy 02:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, when you state that the ArbCom "wrote the EC mandate", to what are you referring? It was proposed in December 2012 by Tznkai (one of three election administrators a year earlier), who described the EC's responsibilities as "grunt work".  —David Levy 02:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As is no doubt obvious from my comments above, I agree entirely with David Levy about the limitation of the EC's role and share his concerns about this apparent attempt to expand it. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While the EC is limited in role - within that role it has quite broad scope due to noth the wording, and the intent when the EC was drafted. It is designed to basically resolve using pretty much any means necessary all disputes/contradictions/unforseen issues to do with specifically and only, the election. In order to prevent it being a long drawn out affair, or potentially, resulting in a no-result/lack of successful candidates. Guy Macon is correct when he cites the authority of the EC to act in this, however that authority cannot by its nature explicitly lay out every circumstance that may crop up. If you want to change the authority of the EC, that would be a matter for after the election. As written however, Guy is correct in its role and authority to act. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is designed to basically resolve using pretty much any means necessary all disputes/contradictions/unforseen issues to do with specifically and only, the election.
 * The EC's role is to help help ensure the smooth implementation of established election procedures and address issues arising in that context, not to serve as a panel of judges presiding over any and all disagreements related to the election (which has not yet begun).
 * This is an RfC, stemming from a proposed policy change – a normal Wikipedia community discussion. No process snag has occurred.  —David Levy 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As to whether this is a novel/unforeseen issue, the potential issues raised by non-admins being elected is not new and has been discussed many times. There are invariably non-admin candidates who stand in the elections. I can think of one non-admin who served as an Arb -. Nohat was one of the original members of ArbCom when Jimmy created it in January 2004. He became an administrator several months later, on 22 April 2004, following a successful RfA. What is different this year was Roger Davies' post to WP:BN suggesting that +sysop be provided automatically to any non-admins elected to ArbCom, on the basis that the election amounted to at least as much scrutiny as RfA. The bureaucrats who responded stated that they would only do so if such a course of action was endorsed by the community at an RfC, hence why we find ourselves here. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Secondly, I'll reiterate that this specific issue is of far less concern than your fundamental misunderstanding of the EC's role. —David Levy 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) How about the message in which I asked you to cite text from the arbitration policy (or any other Wikipedia policy) through which the ArbCom derives the authority to create new policy by fiat or assign such a responsibility to others? (The timestamp is "02:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC).") —David Levy 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Deciding that non-admins elected as arbitrators should receive the administrator priviledge is a decision for the community, and this is a question for what happens after the election. The electoral commission cannot hand down a decree that this occur absent community consensus. In a situation where consensus is not found, I agree with David Levy and WJBscribe that any "ruling" from the electoral commission (other than the maintenance of the status quo) would not be valid and would likely not be acted upon; bureaucrats enact only consensus decisions. This being said, it appears that there is a strong consensus against the notion (at least based on current trend), so I'm not sure if is necessary to debate at length except insofar as to clarify to Guy Macon the reach of the electoral commission's authority. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to have arbitrarily decided that if there is no consensus non-admin arbitrators should not get the admin bit. On what basis did you make that decision? Why not arbitrarily decide that if there is no consensus non-admin arbitrators should get the admin bit? Precedent? There is no precedent for non-admins being elected as arbitrators -- it is a new situation. One could argue that we never gave an arb the admin bit before, but of course we didn't -- they already had it. One could argue that arbs have always had the admin bit, but that would be equally silly as a precedent -- of course they have. When facing a situation that has never happened before and no consensus as to what should happen now (fortunately not the case this time) you cannot simply pick your preferred outcome and say "of the two possible choices, this is the choice you must choose if there is no consensus" because someone else can say the same thing picking the other choice. For some specific decisions what to do in the case of no consensus is defined at WP:NOCONSENSUS, but this situation is not on that list. As Only in death correctly points out above, it is the job of the EC to decide, but I hope I have made it abundantly clear that everyone on the EC would much prefer that this be decided by the community, and that we will only make a decision if the community cannot agree on what to do. We have a deadline, and this must by decided before the first non-admins arbitrators starts his term. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The status quo always reigns in an absence of consensus. No consensus in an RFA = user does not receive administrator userrights. No consensus that a non-administrator elected to the committee should receive userrights = user does not receive administrator userrights. A non-administrator has been appointed to the committee in the past and did not receive the userrights by default, so we are not without precedent. I'm not sure why you feel the electoral commission has the authority to create a novel procedure for appointing administrators in the absence of community consensus that a new creation process is desired. Although you keep saying "you hope you won't have to", it's still somewhat concerning that you seemingly believe the electoral commission has the ability and authority to do so. As purely a matter of housekeeping, this discussion probably belongs on the talk page as it is meta to the question of the RFC. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Guy Macon, do your comments here reflect the views of all three members of the electoral commission? I would be interested to know if your interpretation of the scope of the electoral commission's authority is shared by Mdann52 and Mike V. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my capacity as an individual commissioner, I don't believe that the electoral commission would have the standing to solely decide if non-admins do or don't get the bit in the absence of a community consensus. Our ability to make judgement calls is strictly related to election affairs. (e.g. Last year when there was a perceived ambiguity in the candidate deadline and there was no time to run an RfC.) As pointed out, one election commissioner has participated in part of the RfC so it wouldn't be best to close it collectively. However, I don't plan on contributing to the RfC, so I'd be up to closing it in my individual capacity if there's no objections. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please expand upon "A non-administrator has been appointed to the committee in the past". Everyone else seems to think that this never happened, and having a precedent would be very useful in cases where no consensus can be determined. real-world evidence that at least one arbitrator was able to fulfill his or her duties without the admin bit would also be very useful. Who? When? Were they elected by an RfA-like process, appointed by Jimbo, or what?? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please see WJBscribe's message with the timestamp "11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)", wherein your questions are answered. A non-administrator becoming an arbitrator via a community election (distinction underlined) is what hasn't occurred in the past.
 * Thanks. I missed that message. To save people time looking it up, the non-admin arb was, who was appointed as one one of the original members of arbcom when Jimbo created it in January 2004. He passed an RfA several months later.
 * Please disregard all of my comments concerning there being no precedent. I would have to run it by the other EC members, but at first glance this appears to be a good precedent for deciding what the status quo should be if there is no consensus.
 * Let me guess; Nohat wasn't given checkuser or oversight bits either. Am I correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you also miss the message in which I questioned your claim that the ArbCom "wrote the EC mandate" (proposed in December 2012 by a non-arbitrator, who described the EC's responsibilities as "grunt work")? The timestamp is "02:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)".
 * The circumstances in which the admin bit is assigned will be expanded if and when the Wikipedia community reaches consensus for such a change or one is made by the Wikimedia Foundation. That a potential situation has not arisen in the course of a previous election doesn't automatically place it in the EC's scope.  Your role is to help ensure that the election runs as expected, not to dictate the expectations.   —David Levy 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask arbcom for a clarification. In the meantime, I am going to stop responding to the same argument posted again and again. It is approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory, and I don't want my responses to themselves become bludgeoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your responses (and in some instances, the absence thereof) are approaching WP:LISTEN territory. —David Levy 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Move to talk page?
The suggestion has been made to move this to the talk page. I think that is a good idea, but of course would not make the move myself because I am involved and may have an unconscious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jargon
I am a longtime Wikipedian with about a literal myriad of edits, but I have never been in the bureaucracy here. I followed a link from my talk page and am trying to follow the issues.

Dear comrades, pray tell me, what the hell are "the bit" and "the mop"?
 * As a result of the foregoing consensus, questions over whether the non-admin arbitrators should retain the bit after ending their term and whether use of the bit should remain exclusive to ArbCom business become moot
 * Is there any evidence to the claim that the mop is necessary to perform arb work?

Please ping me if you answer or comment. --Thnidu (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * These are slang terms used by the cognoscenti to refer in a loving manner to the status of "Administrator" where "the bit" is the explicit permission held in the database for an ordinary editor to gain the admin toolkit, and "the mop" is a self deprecating reference to the fact that admins clear up messes rather than have positions of authority or management. Fiddle   Faddle  09:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I urge the creation of a glossary of WP slang, to the appropriate §§ Of which these could be linked. A Wikipedtionary?? --Thnidu (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see Glossary. Who knew? Fiddle   Faddle  09:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Timtrent is right, and I apologize for the confusion. Upon reflection, it was inappropriate of me to use this kind of jargon in the closing statement, and as a result, I have made minor amendments to clarify. I hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)