User:Casliber/Fivecrat

Proposal to solve a few things

OK, feel free to comment on the talkpage folks or reword more nicely. Does everyone get the algorithm/flowchart BTW? I do no think that WP:RfC really is really the place to arbitrate on an arbitrator as it is too chaotic, to me. Also the open nature of involvement means it could be gamed with a concerted effort of a party of like-minded editors.

Existing problems

A remedy for a number of issues (either perceived or real):

• Lack of desysop mechanism for admins
• Lack of "check and balance" or "safety valve" or mechanism of review of situations intimately involved with arbcom. Main example would be arbcom member whose conduct is presumed problematic.

Fivecrat committee

A committee (given the name for the purposes of this proposal a fivecrat committee) may be formed by five current bureaucrats and review certain cases and present findings to the Community. A majority of 4:1 would be required for a particular recommendation:

• (a) review of administrator conduct, where issue is purely related to abuse of admin tools alone (the idea would be that the application would be made to arbcom in the first instance, who would rule it was a relatively straightforward case to adjudicate on and therefore pass it to the fivecrat committee).

• (b) cases where the conduct of an arbitrator was called into question.

Rationale: Wikipedia needs to have some alternate check or balance in place for cases where arbcom in its entirety would be recused. The project is getting to the size and scope that this should be in place before needed in an emergency. Rather than reinvent the wheel and form a new committee from nothing, I note that we have a pool of editors whose conduct has been thought of as (almost) exemplary, namely the bureaucrats (although WP:RFB is based on need for tools, reading between the lines, successful candidates are often noted for their high conduct and ability). Given the current role involves promoting admins, it seems that adding the ability to rule on abuse of tools and then desysop would appear to be a logical extension. The next hurdle is deciding on a number for the fivecrat committee. Five seems a good choice as is small enough to convene (and desysop) quickly, while large enough to ensure a spread of opinion (and thus maybe harder to game in some way):

Consequences If the fivecrat committee recognised there was a problem with an arbitrator, and the arbitration committee disagreed with the finding, the onus would be on the arbitration committee to provide a plausible explanation as to why there was a variance of opinion. This may have to include some private correspondence between them. If they failed to do this, then the arbitrator should resign or be removed.

Postscript Another benefit may be the need for more bureaucrats, regardless of intent, the status of bureaucratship is an acknowledgement of nearly unanimous support and trust of the community and hence serves as a recognition of merit and honour. I suspect there may be more people deserving of this that have not come forward due to impression there is no need for more.