User:Robert McClenon/Jury Comments

I think that some sort of jury system for dealing with certain types of disputes is an interesting idea that might be feasible and might not be feasible. I think that a moderated discussion about such a system would be appropriate. The difficult questions would have to do with how the jury is selected. Jury service would have to be voluntary; unlike real jury duty in the United States; some editors would not take their service seriously, and some editors are not good-faith editors. There would need to be an option to appeal to ArbCom.

However, the way that you raise the question concerns me. You refer to an existing highly centralized system of enforcement. The English Wikipedia has four different mechanisms for sanctioning disruptive editors: Only the last two are centralized, so I am inferring that your concern is with Arbitration Enforcement, since ArbCom would have to be the appellate body. I don't think that Arbitration Enforcement should be replaced by jury trials; Arbitration Enforcement is for contentious areas, where screening the jurors for neutrality (including a review of their nationality and ideology) would not be feasible.
 * 1) Block by one administrator, reviewable by the community;
 * 2) Noticeboards, mainly WP:ANI;
 * 3) Arbitration Enforcement;
 * 4) ArbCom.

Also, you refer to censoring content by banning editors. Wikipedia is not censored, but verifiability and neutral point of view are essential, and content may be edited or removed if it is poorly sourced or would give undue weight to one point of view. I explain this in more detail in my essay on Yelling Censorship. Editors who tendentiously edit in contentious areas against consensus or against due weight unfortunately should be restricted.