[WikiEN-l] Superusers?

[Fences Windows]

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:46:05 +0100
From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at 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