Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:46:05 +0100
From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>
The point is not to have admins.
You could just have it so that the vote blanks/unblanks the page, in
real time, whenever the total is a majority for blanking. You would
have to make sure that juries are taken from well-established editors,
and that it's understood that people that vote to blank for bad faith
reasons would get permanently blocked (if another jury found that you
had done that).
--
-Ian Woollard
Sounds like Pure wiki deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system (and that's not
a good thing). Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform.
If normal admin deletion were retained (which it will be), a jury system would
make AfD like a trial: editors make arguments for and against deletion, acting
as the prosecution, defense, and witnesses, then the jury decides the outcome,
which an admin (judge) enacts, presumably with veto power if the jury has
decided something crazy. Are admins generally making such bad decisions that we
need to replace their decisions with laborious jury panels? ArbCom works as a
jury panel, and it moves at snail's pace. Remember that we do have DRV for
controversial decisions. A simpler change, which I've proposed before, would be
to require admins to give a rationale for their close on any AfD that is not
unanimous.
DRV allows participants in the original debate to take part, which is somewhat
flawed. A jury system could work for DRV, as there would be a managable workload
compared to assessing every single XfD decision. The system would need to have a
way of involving active editors in 'jury duty', which is tricky for a volunteer
project.
F&W