Forum:Loya Jirga/archive2

Loya Jirga
Reading some of the comments here and trying to think of a way forward I would suggest. I should point out that this is very much a "second best" option as the best solution would be not to feed or otherwise encourage trolls - and this would be my preferred solution. However, as we as a group seem to be incapable of then then a more legalistic approach seems to be called for. I shall now return to lurking.--BobIt's cold! 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The creation of a Loya Jirga which will decide on banning people who seem to be particularly disruptive.
 * This group of people will be elected for a term of six months.
 * In order to facilitate decision-making there should be no more than seven members and the block vote should be by simple majority.
 * Their deliberations will not be held in public on the wiki as the objective is remove HCM.
 * Three months after their deliberations have finalized they will be published in full so that the site can know how decisions were reached along with the positions held by the various members.
 * If somebody is perma-banned or binned then a clear reason will be given.
 * If a perma-ban/bin is being discussed this information will be made available to the wiki.
 * The user involved may make a submission to the Loya Jirga is they so wish.
 * Such bans or blocks should be seen as very much the exception.
 * There will be no appeal.
 * The blocks will also apply to any user which the Loya Jirga has sufficient reason to believe is a sock of a banned user.


 * Not so fond of the secret discussions part, although if there were some way to limit it to solely one page that would be better. Part of HCM is the fact that things spread over half the wiki, to talk pages and Saloon Bar and so on.  Just look at Earthland trying to pull his dispute with Irrational Atheist over here, that's the sort of thing we as a group want to discourage.  Trolls, of course, encourage that.  --Kels (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The secret discussions sort of make sense, and we could just designate a page on the wiki for it. I think 3 months is way too long, though; a couple of weeks should do. 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Confidential (better word) discussions opened to the wiki as soon as the action has been taken surely. Why wait?  17:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Toast. I'd just put them out once the decision has been made. Silence invites speculation. Bob, you're right that these discussions shouldn't just happen in a page that everyone can toss their 2 cents in to. -- 17:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible to make a page that is visible, but can only be edited by folks in a certain group? You could probably leave the talk page for the peanut gallery, since people are gonna want to comment on some things and it's better than hiving it off to user talk pages. --Kels (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Term limits are silly and unnecessary. Just let the members leave whenever they want to, and elect people to fill the gaps. If the mob feels that particular members are too harsh/lenient, then we have a vote. A short delay between releasing the discussion might be preferable. Also, membership should be limited to experienced editors. Broccoli (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EC: The reason for the delay is to allow opinions to cool. The immediate release might simply kick start another round of debate.  Hopefully by three months people will have lost interest and it will only be a boring historic record. What I'm trying to avoid is everybody and his sock kicking in.--BobIt's cold! 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe three months is a bit long. Stuff usually cools down here quite quickly. Let the Loya Jirga decide when to release. And they should all be 'crats. Broccoli (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Term limits are necessary because people tend to stay with things the way they are, unless there will be a vote anyway. 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, I see your point. I do think though that 3 months is too long. Maybe a week or two? My worry is that speculation fills the void left by an absence of facts. Yup, some kind of rotation makes sense, if only to prevent cliques from forming. -- 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you not think that the mob would be capable of regulating the Loya Jirga? I'm fairly sure that any complaints about power abuse or clique formation would be raised quite quickly. Broccoli (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think you are overthinking this. Let anyone vandal bin, a quorum of Crats to ban or debin, reason on a locked page - discussion by sysops or lower irrelevant. This should be an extremely rare occurance. Crats to determine handling of socks. I didnt think you were talking far reaching powers , just the minimum to avoid fights over binning/banning troublesome users  Hamster (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that only 'crats (or the elected team for the month) should handle debinning and with damn good cause. Also, I am very anti the idea of secret discussions!. One page should be viable for openness and the talk page be used for suggestions by the group. Acei9 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that would just lead to the same HCM, because bickering would occur on the talk page. However, we could try it, and only switch if it doesn't work. Broccoli (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Objective opinion from a long time lurker Trolling
Some content moved to Forum:Loya Jirga/Trolling.

Rationalwiki is an anarchy (whatever other word you may invent to make it seem otherwise), and although the anarchy may work fine for a year or two, it will never work out for the rest of eternity. Tens of thousands of words have been written here because members of RW have finally begun to understand this and try to bring some order into anarchy.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with such oversimplification? --Earthland (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, sounds about right to me. Simplified, as you said, but not fundamentally wrong.  Essentially I agree with Michael, we do need to have some level that acts like a conventional website so everyone else can be free to carry on enjoying themselves.  Because otherwise, very few people end up enjoying themselves and you have a wiki that bleeds members. --Kels (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

HCM avoidance & checkuser
So far we've concentrated on troll-induced HCMs, and they have indeed dominated lately. But what about HCMs caused by legitimate users disagreeing, like the messagebox dispute? I assume the Loya Jirga would intervene then, so what actions should be taken? Preventing trolls is only part of conflict resolution. 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Easier if the Loya Jirga decides when to intervene and what to do, rather than making up a load of rules that will end up having to be reviewed. I maintain that if the Loya Jirga group gets out of hand, the mob will dispose of it and put up a new one. Broccoli (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good system; I still think re-elections will be necessary, but we should have the ability to call an election at an arbitrary time if the Loya Jirga gets out of hand (yes, I'm going to put it in italics. It looks better that way). 19:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rules shouldn't expand. We already have decent guidelines for behaviour. We need to understand the intent of them, and that can be applied to unexpected situations. This kind of thing can be summed up in a few sentences. Yup, the Loya Jirga thing has to be serving a purpose or it should be disposed of. Mind you, if we get to that level then something pretty serious is probably happening on the site, and I suggest there won't be many people left around by that time. -- 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just let me run the wiki. It might end up resembling a fascist dictatorship, but shit will get done damnit! 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But the trains! Will the trains run on time? --Kels (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. They will run on thyme.  -- 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the LJ should focus primarily on trolling and vandalism, if only because at the moment that is the more serious issue, though I think they should have discretionary powers in this regard. One thing regards trolling/vandalism that hasn't been addressed is that this will mean we have to bite the bullet and get over using checkuser, as it's going to be frustrating and pointless for the LJ to operate with it being a constant hot button issue. Regarding existing users causing HCM, I think perhaps giving the LJ the right to lock a page for a short time that is heading towards the mudpit, long neough to force people to step back from the keyboard for a bit. They should only really look at blocking any individual editors if they carry the conlfict across to other pages. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 19:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For checkuser, couldn't we simply change the software so that it only reports accounts from the same IP, without displaying the IP? It would remove most privacy concerns. 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we didn't do any checkusering. To put it another way: no way am I installing that extension. -- Nx  / talk 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree - we don't need checkuser. If the same troll comes back we just bin/ban again. Acei9 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, binning works on all accounts from that IP, so checkuser is unnecessary. 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. If this is the case, I guess its not so much of an issue. Just wanted to draw attention to the matter though. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can't tell user:foobar is a troll's sock, then user:foobar is not a problem - until demonstrated otherwise. We can spot the mini-marcuses all right, so we don't need checkuser. what I mean is, troll socks reveal themselves and can be dealt with as and when. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So much pastry.
For such a little pie. Y'know, if things don't work out, you can always go back to the way they were. Suck it and see. The worst that would happen is a couple of people get hacked off. The planet will still survive. MaxAlex Swimming pool 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we ready to go with the Loya Jirga and see what happens, then? Broccoli (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's getting there, isn't it? the only dissenting voices are those wanting to stick with the current system, which isn't really working. Someone want to start a RationalWiki:Elections to the Loya Jirga page? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I want my promotion dammmit. MaxAlex Swimming pool 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to get it the hard way like I did - bribing TOP and Edgerunner with free beer. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Anagram
Joy, a Grail! Totnesmartin (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gay or jail! 20:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Joyaa girl! Totnesmartin (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

KNEEL BEFORE THE LOYA JIRGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Should now be one of the reason choices in drop down menu when banning. I like it :) -- 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can back this. (The rest I feel is important, but I can't care enough to really put forward any suggestions.) Researcher (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to do that, but i couldn't be arsed and bought a spiderman book on amazon instead. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, isn't it a bit derivative of the much superior KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!! --Kels (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, Kneel before Zod came after the far superior Kneel before the might of Sutekh! Totnesmartin (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Etc's opinion
As this page seems quite unorganized, I'm adding a new section merely to state my own opinion.

Any small enough community can be run as an anarchy. The fact that that wonderful "system" no longer works here is just a sign that RW is growing. That is good.

The solution is boring, soulless but simple and necessary:
 * 1) Establish rules
 * 2) Appoint regular users to administrator, only if they show good behavior and responsibility
 * 3) Ban disruptive users, only for legitimate reasons (breaking aforementioned rules)

It's a good thing. It doesn't mean that it will become boring. Etc 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is basically it in a nutshell. Acei9 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This site is growing rapidly! Totnesmartin (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE
I recall graphs on the blog showing that most Rats edit during working hours in the week. Can we hold off further discussion until say Wednesday? 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we stop now, nothing will get done. Voting probably won't be over for about a week anyway. Plently of time for everyone to chime in. Broccoli (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just don't want it to appear like a fait accompli when all t'others log on. 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Carpe diem! The righteous cause of the Loya Jirga cannot be halted! Broccoli (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all still vague - despite the new election and role pages, it still might not happen, although I hope it does. Anyway, agree with the cooked slice of bread that this should be in the air all week. There's an intercom about it already so people will know when they turn up for work RWing tomorrow. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually losing my internet for a few days. I soon will no longer be a casualty of dial-up!--Thanatos (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with decision making here is that it is often rushed and people who are away for a few days are left out. 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * true, which is why we're holding off for a while so everyone can have a say, this is too big for a fait accompli. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Name
Do we have to stick with Loya Jirga? There are millions of other & probably better things we could call it. 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the WP:Loya Jirga is a vaguely-defined group who decide matters of weight in one of world's most badly run countries, I think it's perfectly fitting. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Totnesmartin, very appropiate... All members elected to the Loya Jirga will be required to fire an AK-47 into the air to celebrate the momentous occasion. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 23:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And we can have a game of Buzkashi. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have access to an AK-47, so if I shoot it into the air, I have to explain why to my neighbors. They'll never understand.   00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought Latoya Jackson ? what ? and moved on ... Hamster (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it was amusing name for this forum, I think LJ is an awful name for the "group" if we proceed with this. Since most of the wiki's business is conducted in some form of English, why not come up with an English name, or at least a more familiar word (Taliban? The Panel? The Committee?).  It should at least be moderately self-explanatory, IMO.  20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sarah Palin Death Panel..? Acei9 20:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cabal. -- Captain Obvious 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Supreme Court? High Council? Witenagemot? 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with the BLP, here. Call a spade a spade. You're forming a cabal. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But what do we call the old cabal, then? The Old Cabal? 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not necessary. Simply continue denying it's existence. Leave me to sort it out when I start flinging accusations. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Name change
Consider me an avowed not-fan of the name.

On the one hand, the Loya Jirga is a vaguely defined, loose confederacy of individuals who ritualistically mismanage on of the wors-countries on the planet. That's good.

I, however, propose that it be renamed to the Estates-Rational, after the Estates-General of medieval France. This name is much more specific, carries a heftier weight and higher recognition, and, best of all, the historical role of the Estates-General is much closer to what we envision for the current group being proposed- both are only convened on occasion, both have limited authority outside the purpose they were called for, etc. Thoughts? -- 02:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefer Loya Jirga. Don't want a group with heft or weight. Broccoli (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when did the EG have power? Besides, LJ is a really obscure name. EG would be much more recognizable.  -- 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a section above for this. Heck, I'ma gonna cut and paste this there. I agree this is the friggin lamest "name" RW has ever come up with.   03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Estates General is good, but only if we can have a tennis court. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopeless
One of the main reasons I avoided posting on RW for so long (while reading it) and now have all but left is that there is absolutely no structure at all. I have been subject to blocks of aggression, hate language and (most frustrating) people just stop responding to what I have to say. While, yes, I have stepped over lines here, there aren't lines and there are basically no rules at all other than the whim of bureaucrats that can, at best, be called jackasses. Some pages get deleted, while many who don't fit a supposed "mission statement" get to stay. I don't like Mexican standoffs, and this site is nothing but a giant one. Someone take the damn lead and put your ginormous ego's down, or fire the first shot so everyone goes down. 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Totally agreed, and this proposed Star Chamber will do nothing to solve it, given that several of the users who cause most of the problems have put themselves forward for election detailed their availability. Unless the ability to cause trouble is removed from the people who cause it, trouble will continue to be caused. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Man, I love your winning attitude. Acei9 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already proposed a solution above. I respectfully suggest you read it before commenting again. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, another proponent of the 'normal wiki' solution! Treason! This Loya Jirga isn't going to be ruling the wiki, just squashing trolls and HCMs before they annoy people. I don't deny that as the wiki grows, more committees or a more usual power structure might be needed, but I don't think we need them now. Broccoli (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what sysops and bureaucrats do on normal wikis. Please, can somebody explain to me why people need the ability to engage in idiotic block wars to prove that they're rational? I have never seen a reason for the indiscriminate sysopping of users except that it might be some vague gesture at CP. Is this rational in any sense of the word? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It means that power is diffuse, and roughly equal between most users. It prevents a user rights hierarchy. It allows a samll wiki to effectivly deal with vandalism. Broccoli (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No... it doesn't. You're talking about adding an extra layer to an already malfunctioning system. Call me cynical, call me pessimistic, but it won't work. What will it be next? A three-person committee to oversee the seven-person committee with an oh-so-clever name? Just use the software as it was supposed to be used. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know it won't work? The point of it is to maintain the usual atmosphere of mobocracy, while stopping HCMs. Excuse me if I don't see the doom of RationalWiki approaching because this place isn't run like an internet forum or Wikipedia. Broccoli (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With slightly less venom, I'd like to suggest to you that your solution would be the solution if the problems on the site were caused by the large number of casual editors. The core editors could be given rights, and they would prevent disagreements between the peons spilling. However, most HCMs seem to involve bickering between the core editors. So give them a place to bicker without casuing HCM. Broccoli (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing really amazes me. "Hey, we have a problem that the site comes to a standstill because people argue all the time. Let's get together and argue about what to do about this.  Of course we'll never agree on what to do...we never do." Really, you all have outdone yourselves with this one. Congratulations. 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you've been such a help in getting us to a different resolution. Well done! --Kels (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a non-bureaucrat, that is not my job. I'm not going to attempt to act in the capacity of a bureaucrat here for several reasons.  Mostly, it's Too much watching people with no solutions bitch an moan back and forth at each other.   04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The best way to stop bitching and moaning is not to do it yourself. 04:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow...bureaucrats really are shameless. I digress.  Best of luck to you all, you're going to need it!   04:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * dude, just give it a rest already. Thanks for your best wishes, let us get down to business without your sideshow. Acei9 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)You are usually unpleasant without the benefit of any insight, cgb. It is unfortunate.-- 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall delete all my non-insight then. You do not have my permission to use it in any capacity.   04:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You CC by SAd all your non-insights when you clicked "save". We own you now.  04:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone needs his binky! Yes he does bloo bloo bloo who's sooooo big?  You are!-- 04:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about this until the site-wide header
But thanks for alerting me so I can continue to ignore it! Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

constitutional proposal
I think one "body" is insufficient, and we should follow the Christian model provided to the world by the USA and develop a tripartite form of government. In a nutshell:


 * A legislative body. This group would essentially be in charge of drafting proposals.  Mob approval would still be required for any changes.
 * An executive body. This group would be responsible for enforcing whatever rules we have by putting together charges and evidence and bringing them before the...
 * Judiciary. The judicial group would respond to any charges brought by the cops and determine and enforce any sanctions required.

All three should have some form of power over the other two, impeachment-type powers. All group members would be rotated (or not) at varying intervals. No one can be in more than one group. All other editors are always free/encouraged to commentate on the deliberations of the three groups on talk pages. I would suggest roughly 11-13 or so legislators, 7-11 or so cops, and probably 7 Meters of Justice.

This splits up the authority and avoids the Star Chamber effect I see being developed above.

I would like to warn our descendants of the corrupting influence of factions, by the way. 02:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to commentate on this and say that I oppose any form of control that is more complicated than that which it controls. I think we should have a Humanocracy instead.-- 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck no Tom AD, we can't have this giant mutant bat in charge. Acei9 02:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heresies will not be permitted under His benevolent reign, thou varlet.-- 02:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would require 31 people. Do we even have that many editors any more? They seem to be dropping like flies. 02:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently the main argument for this process is that RW has grown too big to be run "the old way", so surely there are plenty of people available? 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I want health care! And doing away with ebil terrorists!  Where do I sign up?  Šţěŗĭļė 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The constitution guarantees freedom and health care is a form of government tyranny. Also the constitution specifically says the country must be capitalist and health care is socialism. Also it says Jesus at least 6 times. 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus also says health care is socialism. And he said it in Conservative English, bitch! --Kels (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn. Šţěŗĭļė 03:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I was serious... bodies could be smaller... yellow dresses for everyone, and a pretty red hat for RobS! 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Godlike Rulership
Since no decision has yet been implemented, that I can see, its obvious that a Godlike Authority is required to cut through and get things done , hopefully in less than 6 days. I therefore require you to all bow down before me and make me the Samurai Pizza Crat. (uh oh). I promise to rule fairly and impartially all the unknown peons of the site, and give my good buddies special treatment, just exactly as it should be. Thanks for listening, I will now go far away .. Hamster (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I $\pi$ shall be your Reptilian Overlord. 04:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I will be the perfect Emperor Cleon III.  Bow before me!  -- 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were God, I'd make a few changes. RobSmithdon't bother me 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I am curious...  04:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No you're not. Go fuck yourself. 04:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * God's too patient and merciful. I wouldn't wait til they die to send some sinners to hell, I' d send some there while thier still living.  RobSmithdon't bother me 04:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You and your Schlafly should continue rewriting the bibble to emphasize hell on earth more then, Rob. 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.: Isaiah 30:22 KJV RobSmithdon't bother me 05:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else think that Repltile Overlord pic looks just a little Gay ! 8)  Hamster (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not any gayer than this one. 04:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob, are you saying that God is not perfect? Blasphemy!--Thanatos (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob, if you were god, would all ladies wear yellow? Acei9 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Polly.jpg
 * Are you sure that's a telecaster? The controls look wrong to me...  19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I, um, wasn't paying attention to the controls. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no guitarist, but that's no Telecaster.  I think it's a Thunderbird?   Human - were you looking at the machine heads?   Yes, those are not from a Telecaster either.   It's an interesting photo of a guitar actually, I wish that person wasn't in the shot, and the guitar were better lit and more properly turned to the camera.   DogP Marmite Patrol 21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I ignored the machine heads since they are so easy to replace. At least they are laid out correctly for a tele.  But the switch and knobs are wrong.  Also, tele bodies have no "sculpting", and body on this one displays some nice curves.  Also also, I wish the uploader had listed the source of the photo, there might be better shots of the guitar there.  22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also also also, isn't the thunderbird a bass? You know, with four strings?  22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Picture from here, guitar pics here, there (pic 3) and everywhere. I agree that there are good curves on the body. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! It's a Firebird.  01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rotational Loya Jirga proposal
We already have a group of bureaucrats who are given extra responsibilities beyond sysops, & who are now chosen by election. + The list of Loya Jirga nominees looks a lot like a list of our active bureaucrats. So having a separate subgroup seems unnecessary, overly hierarchical, & may cause resentment for those not chosen. It will be better to have a Loya Jirga rotation, with each crat taking turns. This would also keep the system relatively mobocratic: it will be less like a council of elders & more like jury duty. Something like this: What do you reckon? 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Every bureaucrat is on the Loya Jirga rota for one month at a time, every few months (depending on the number of crats).
 * Inactive bureaucrats are decratted, with a note on their talk page explaining the reason. They can be given their cratship back if they become active again.
 * We set up a page with some code in it that will display the names of seven bureaucrats (the Loya Jirga), plus two or three more as substitutes if required, and will change the names every month, going through the full list of crats in a repeating pattern. (Perhaps we can change the order that it chooses names periodically, so that it's not always the same combinations of users).
 * Any bureaucrat can call the Loya Jirga when they think it is necessary. S/he posts a comment on the Loya Jirga page outlining why the Loya Jirga in required.
 * S/he checks the current Loya Jirga list, and contacts all current LJ members with a comment on their talk page to alert them to the LJ meeting.
 * If s/he is not on the LJ list him/herself, s/he take no further part in the discussion (unless the LJ request further comment or explanation from him/her).
 * If any crat on the LJ rota is unavailable, or doesn't wish to be involved, they can nominate another crat to serve instead, or one of the substitutes can be used.
 * The LJ remains in session with the same members until a decision is reached. Their discussion about the case is on the Loya Jirga page only.
 * Other users may not comment on the LJ page, but may comment on its talk page. They should only contact LJ members directly about the case if they have information (not just an opinion) which could affect the decision.
 * I like that but a couple of things - the L.J should never be used for trivial matters. It aint a police force it is an HCM moderator.
 * Any L.J member outside L.J business is a mere editor as everyone else.
 * Acei9 09:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Lets move on this before we get fragmented. I think its important. Acei9 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I plead for simples. Too many rules. If the problem is people abusing sysopship, then either a. take it away from them or b. stop handing it out like candy. Rotation / election / hypnosis as a method of pro-actively preventing good apples rotting just serves to make the whole thing more complicated and less workable.
 * On another note, while there is a decent pool of people at the moment (toys being thrown out of the pram aside, c.f. Nx), how do people get in that pool? MaxAlex Swimming pool 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with simples is that it isn't really workable any more: things need to be agreed & resolved, which is what this is all about. E.g. your solutions a & b above aren't really as simple as they sound: we would need clearer criteria for sysopship if we were going to restrict it or deny it to some users.   13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against the LJ; I'm arguing against the musical chairs and policies'n'procedures. Why take a subset of some of the rats? Are they going to pay more attention for that month when they're on duty? I just don't see the point. Post questions to LJ page, crats come to consensus, decision is pooped out. That's simples. MaxAlex Swimming pool 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ace on this one. Good proposal, now let's try and not kill it in committee. -- Psygremlin  17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of rotation is a) to keep the number down to 7 (or whatever it ends up as) and b) stopping it being the same people all the time. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's just go
We'll just descend into navel-gazing if we keep up the discussion. Let's put the proposal into effect. 19:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Put something into effect, tweak it as it goes. Voting for LJ members next? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Execute. 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Megathrusters are go.  20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest +ve votes only to avoid recriminations? 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Phantom Hoover has started the vote. 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed. I thought we were going to wait a week so everyone has a say. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pish, the massive base of users who oppose this move can vote goat, like everyone else. Broccoli (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. We haven't agreed how many people we're voting in or for how long or what powers they will have.  We can't just "put the proposal into effect" when there's two or three different proposals on this page with no consensus yet about which one we go for.   21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. The consensus thus far seems to be a 7 person Loya Jirga made up of 'crats, who will halt HCMs before they escalate and decide what to do with trolls. We can work out fine details as we go along. Broccoli (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm a bit surprised Goat hasn't won so far. --Kels (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How can we make an informed decision without Sarah Palin? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some useless babbling about what has occured over the last few days
I've been out of the loop on this issue, but I figured I'd add my two cents to the topic at hand. When I was getting my 6σ green belt and lean management certifications, a focal point was on team building. Team building happens in 3 stages in the following order: norm, storm, and perform. What appears to be happening to this wiki is that it has gone, over the last many months, from the first stage, norm, to the second stage, storm. In simpler terms, we went from having everybody know that this wiki and its contributors had their flaws but going about trying to ignore those flaws, to the point where those fundamental flaws about the state of things here finally came to one heckuva bloody fight over every little issue inherent within the community; from not dealing with trolls to what should/should not be an article, to whether we should be more fun or more serious. And, while such fights are always bloody messes, the processes which occur now, in the aftermath of the storm, are the schizms that build a better team here within the community. The HCM that caused this Loya Jirga discussion was a long time coming. Had you asked me 3 months ago whether it was going to happen, I would've told you it was inevitable.

So, with all that jargon above, how do we move on? Simple: by talking out these problems in a way that is rational, like we have been doing. Throwing a fit and walking away does little good. Being abrasive toward each other and hurling insults at people who are otherwise good contributors here, is an horrible way to go about this project. But it happens. I am, however, happy to see that the community, for all intents and purposes seems to have figured out that the only solution is to have open discussions about how to address everybody's grievances. With that, my only suggestion is that, from now, we remember to do this when some major drama occurs to avoid more out of control HCMs like this in the future. But, enough of my babbling. 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup. The main issue was that everyone here has the same amount of say on an issue. When MC started fucking things up it turned into a civil war between the "get the fuck rid of him" camp and the "we don't do that, give him another chance" camp. Everyone fought with everyone and MC succeeded in his quest. We need a central authority on this kind of thing. 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Goon: This is the first time I think I've seen an HCM actually result in a change. Usually, the debate does that Turdblossom thing, and nothing happens. If Concerned Resident hadn't booted it up again, I think it would have ended at before 23:00 (wiki-time) the day it started. Didn't you predict something like this last year? Or was that someone else? @Crundy: the problem might have been that every camp of a reasonable size had equal say regardless of relative sizes between groups. And because we (as a community) can't do DFTT. Broccoli (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the Goonie one (the HCM died out when we started working together on something, even if there are differing views), Broccoli, has anything actually changed yet? Let's judge that in a week - or two?  00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blog
I have created a blog on which the LJ can discuss things. At present there's only one person (me) able to edit or comment, the LJ members can be added to author list & comments can be opened to "registered users" (whatever that means). I thought it might be preferable to having it OnWiki. Comments? 05:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it on-wiki. Make a namespace, only LoserJackoffs can edit "articles", anyone can edit talk pages, and get Nx to do some magic so it's not on recent flanges.  05:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Human. I think we want to be as transparent as possible.  We need to hear from Nx on what the possibilities are for viewable but closed discussion.-- 06:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a read of the selections available. 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like we can protect the LJ namespace. Non-LJ 'crats can be instructed (and presumably trusted or they shouldn't be Crats) not to edit that space.-- 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can make custom groups like the Irrational numbers group. I think you can even make them server side so they can't be changed by crats. 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's easy then OK. I just wanted somewhere that only LJ members could post, while allowing comments from anyone. If there's a Custom Group, can anyone view their space; can anyone use the talkpages? The Blog format seemed good to me. So it goes.
 * I love Vonnegut. I almost got a "So it goes" tattoo, but it seemed too trendy.-- 06:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I've used that several times here & no-one's noticed before. 06:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jebus on an Easter stick, if Andrew Schlshit can figure it out, we can. 12:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But didn't we figure out how to access his soopah seekrit members' pages on CP? Same can happen here, né? -- Psygremlin  19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Next order of business
Where should we meet? Badges have to be designed, banners unfurled, manifestos promulgated, factions fractioned, and a trash drive to clean up all the campaign signs all over town needs to be planned... 10:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a namespace and a usergroup limiting editing to it? 10:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. Can the talk pages on it be set for open editing?  11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pages are open editing by default, you would have to set it to restricted in order to restrict it. 11:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we just have a Forum section (like e.g. RW Article discussion) Where only LJ members are allowed to post but ayone can use the talk page? 17:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page edits won't show up on the special "forum recent changes" thing. I think a namespace would be fine, but also maybe just one master article at RW:LJ would be enough, lock the page to the group members and leave the talk open; each individual issue or topic can be made in a single archive with a clear link when it is resolved (assuming we ever get any work to worry about).  18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose that the Special Page/Forum be Called Jirging Off.--Tolerance (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Second. 22:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Turd. 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Wiki Loyas?--BobIt's cold! 06:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
It seems to me that a lot of what's in this forum could now be archived. What's you lot think? 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Make it so. 22:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might screw up the magic DPL, check with Nx first. 22:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would just be the equivalent of removing content from this page and putting it elsewhere. I'm pretty sure I talked to Nx about whether archiving (with PiBot) would mess up DPL and it wouldn't as it would only list this page, not any subpage archives. Alternatively, to tidy things up, mothball this thread and start a new one. The entire point was to make it easier to find old things rather than hunting through pages and pages of archives. 11:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point @ the last Armo. How about we move this page to, say, Lumpy Jumper development and then use this forum name for the Lazy Jaguar internal discussions?  I say this because... oh, I don't know, it's just something I thought of...  14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could just have a Loya Jirga subforum? 05:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh, yes, of course.  17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)