Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

This request for comment has been open for more than a week, it has received widespread participation, and the voting phase for 2015 Arbitration Committee Elections has begun. As a result, it has been requested that this discussion be closed as soon as possible to clarify to the community what rights and privileges will be granted to arbitrator-elects, so that they are able to make an informed decision in the election.

The community has formed consensuses on the following issues that I will now summarize:

• There is a strong consensus against granting the administrator right automatically to non-administrators upon appointment to the Arbitration Committee, on the basis that the roles of administrator and arbitrator are fundamentally different, and that being an arbitrator does not necessarily require administrator access. Additionally, nothing in current policy precludes a non-administrator arbitrator from applying for adminship at WP:RFA at any time. Dissenting opinions include that adminship should be “no big deal” and that if a user can be trusted to be an arbitrator, they should also be trusted to be an administrator. There was also some conditional support for allowing admin access exclusively for ArbCom-related business.
• As a result of the foregoing consensus, questions over whether originally non-admin arbitrators should retain administrator access after ending their term and whether use of the admin toolset should remain exclusive to ArbCom business become moot. Supporters for retaining admin access argued that the level of the trust is approximately the same, while opponents contended that all administrators must pass an RFA. Additionally, there was a notable concern that restricting use of the admin toolset to ArbCom business only would be difficult to enforce. An overwhelming majority of editors opposed retaining adminship after ArbCom, while a closer majority of editors supported restricting the use of admin tools to ArbCom business only.
• There is a consensus against granting edit filter manager rights automatically to non-administrators upon appointment to the Arbitration Committee, on the basis that automatic assignment is not necessary, and that if the rights become necessary, they can be requested.
• There is a rough consensus supporting the idea for a new "arbitrator" user right group on the basis that it would simplify the process of assigning the necessary user rights. However, additional discussion is needed to determine what rights exactly should be included in a new "arbitrator" access level. At the moment, this is not clear. There is also a significant minority opinion that no additional rights are needed beyond what we already have available to arbitrators.
• Tracked in Phabricator
  Task T119446
  
  There is a consensus to grant CheckUsers and oversighters the ability to view-only private abuse filters, on the basis that it would be useful to both groups. However, dissenting editors opine that this isn’t necessary because administrators already have this right, and the chance that a non-administrator would genuinely need this right included is small. Additionally, there was some conditional support to grant the right only to oversighters, not CheckUsers.

The two passing proposals regarding user rights require intervention from the Wikimedia Foundation. The proposal for a new arbitrator right requires additional discussion to determine what rights specifically to include in the new group. I recommend starting a new RfC in the near future to determine this.

Respectfully submitted, Mz7 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]