[WikiEN-l] Superusers?

[Ian Woollard]

On 24/08/2010, Fences Windows <fences_and_windows at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Sounds like Pure wiki deletion:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system (and that's
> not a good thing).

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