On 24/08/2010, Fences Windows <fences_and_windows(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It's nothing to do with that at all. It's about using a jury, rather
than judicial system.
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.
No veto power. You would go through DRV.
Are admins generally making such bad decisions that
we need to replace their decisions with laborious jury panels?
What laborious? The jury can just independently read the evidence and
vote. They don't even have to give a reason (unlike right now, where a
reason is required to try to head off outright fraud, but if that
doesn't work, people can just state a fake reason).
ArbCom works as a jury panel, and it moves at
snail's pace.
Snails are animals and they move at a snail's pace. Therefore all
animals move at a 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.
They still can say more or less whatever they want, it doesn't remove
bias from an administrator in any way. The bias is often in who
decides the AfD.
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.
Different schemes could be used, as I imagine it could happen, the
review would be open for a while, and then it would close and over
(say) a couple of days or so the jury would vote on it.
F&W
--
-Ian Woollard