[WikiEN-l] Worthy admins? (was "The userbox fad")

[Ryan Delaney]

On 1/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> Regarding number 2, this is how the US appeals courts work.  "In a
> court of appeals, an appeal is almost always heard by a "panel" of
> three of the court's judges, although there are instances where all of
> the judges will participate in an en banc hearing."  [[United States
> court of appeals]]
>
> I have no idea what the advantages/disadvantages are supposed to be.



The advantages, as I see it, are:

(1) Nearly infinite scalability.
If we have more work to do, we can just add more magistrates. This would
mean that the arbitration process could, if needed, expand to cover a
greater range of subjects, including revoking admin privileges. Also, it
would reduce arbitrator burnout since each magistrate would choose how many
cases he or she would hear; and since each case would already have a
"findings of fact" and a ruling on it before it got to Arbcom, the Arbs
would have to de less work just to comprehend all the information and figure
out what is going on.

(2) Preserved accountability.
Right now, we worry that there aren't enough editors who are trustworthy
enough to be arbitrators. I share this concern. By appointing magistrates,
we have to worry less, since their actions could always be reviewed and
reversed by a higher panel of trusted users. Arbcom could let the good work
get done, and step in to issue corrections on appeals.

Possible disadvantages include:

(1) An increase in bureaucratic steps required to end the arbitration
process. It might complicate the arbitration policy. I don't think this is
much of a concern really, but you can see for yourself  what I think the
effect on the arbitration policy would be by looking at [[User:Ryan
Delaney/sandbox]] and decide for yourself.

Ryan