RationalWiki talk:Loya Jirga

Am I in the Linked Jimboes? I remember the vote, but anything LJ related seems to be a brief burst of activity before it vanishes again. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 15:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the elections you had the most votes.  I'd say you are in. But let's wait a few hours unless somebody wants to raise an objection. (I can't see why anybody would) --BobSpring is sprung! 19:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far I was aware, ConcernedResident is now a member of the Loya Jirga. I mean, Totnesmartin has already left, hasn't he?   22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added Concernedresident to the member list.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Poor bastid.  07:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no so bad. It's probably an opportunity to get endorsements. I'm already in talks with the Dr Pepper Snapple Group, so as long as I mentioned Dr. Pepper a few times a day I'll get paid. What's the worst that can happen? -- ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 10:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate consequence
I just thought something that doesn't appear to have struck anyone else yet. If this thing can't bring cases on itself, then you'd have to assume that the individuals listed can't make a call for a case. Yes, Human said "the LJ is a group, not individuals" but groups are made of individuals. Thus, the group is at the mercy of the traits of individuals and the individuals are at the mercy of the traits of the group. As a result, this takes seven of our most active, pragmatic members and tells them that they can't do anything because, as part of this group, they can't call upon it... As our "core" group is just over a dozen or so, the LJ takes out just under half of the people that would take an interest in calling it to do something. Maybe. 08:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. 08:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should take it to the LJ. P-Foster (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * STOP BEING FUNNY THIS IS SRS BSNS! 08:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it did occur to me when I was wondering why it doesn't seem to get called. So I think it might be seriously worth considering dropping the idea that it can't call itself (maybe exclude the "caller" from the LJ discussion?) or cut it down to a smaller number of individuals that are swapped more regularly. Or perhaps, WP style, form it on an ad hoc basis that excludes people with a vested interest in the outcome... I don't doubt that a small, exclusive committee can do dispute management better than a mob, but the tricky part is getting it to come into action. 08:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because until recently, no one felt the need? 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The LJ are just regular editors so should be able to call the LJ as an editor. Acei9 08:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC)Whatever the LJ is, it ain't what RobS wants it to be or thinks it is. And none of us wear vests, to my knowledge, but we can, if you want.  And PS, post EC, Ace is correct.  08:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the Wikipedia way the arbcom deal with this is to recuse themselves from the deliberations in question if they bring a case or are closely linked to a case - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then how do you define the LJ bringing a case to itself if you don't count the individuals as part of the group calling it "as a regular editor"? If the members can do it "as regular editors" then it will be impossible for the LJ to call itself - so such a clause isn't needed. 11:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, that rule makes no sense. It's only a problem if there's a clear conflict, such as a situation in which Human complains to Human and consults Human who finds that Human is correct and also damn handsome. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Going to be away.
I'm not going to be able to participate in this for the next few days. Got a translation job to finish, some classes to prepare and give and then I'm out of the country for a few days. Won't have much spare time till Sunday evening. If something is urgently taken to a vote for some reason I'd like to nominate ConcernedResident to vote on my behalf in my absence - if CR has no objections.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since CR already has a vote, shouldn't you nominate a new seventh person as your temp? 23:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Initiate the 8-week process! Let justice be served! --Kels (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just have Weaseloid temp for him? He did come in second in the last election.   23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking that up. Any objections?  Bob, is it OK with you?  00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably he wants a proxy who'd do as he would. If he thinks CR would more likely be the one why should he nominate another? 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just sneaking in. Yes,that was my logic. CR frequently seems to have similar opinions to mine. So I wanted him to use my vote. So for a few days he counts as two.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem is, CR is already on the LJ. I do think Bob is free to pick his own sub, though. We were just suggesting the next-highest voet-getter.  01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob. I didn't even get the chance to abuse a second vote. Seems it's all settled now, and I think things worked out pretty well. HCM isn't gone forever, but at least we can fix things without having to stockpile cartridges, water and petrol. -- ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we ask the mob (the other five editors) what specifically they would like us to "rule" on?
Since you [human] asked. Personally I think that the main issue is not so much with the trolls themselves, just a reformulation of the rules regarding removing and/or archiving comments from talk pages. IMHO that is the issue here. --DamoHi 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As they remain in the history, what's the problem with deleting 'em? I'd say that obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial. 01:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Aye. I'd say if two more LJ members say "aye" here that our work is done.  02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye. P-Foster (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye. Acei9 05:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye.  ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 06:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So the LJ returns a decision. As per Toastie above, "obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial." The Local Jumpsuits have spoken. 07:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a page for such pronouncements. SusanG 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We will announce on the LJ page itself? Since you are the PM, please to copy your above words that are voted for at least 5:2? 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * NOW WATCH AS THIS IS ABUSED 86.40.97.164 (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are funny. 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess the next step is for someone to paste Susan's brilliangs above, as approved by 73 LJs, into the community standids? Mob? Bueller? 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The remaining problem is the definition of "obviously vile" - some might consider it pointless if we can't delete stuff that is repetitive, nonsensical and threatening but not "vile". However, I agree fully with the sentiment and conclusion. 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [[file:th_unsure.gif]] Penis vagina buttsex. 13:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have totally deleted that if there wasn't a vagina between that penis and the buttsex. ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Case closed"
On the project page Human writes, "So the LJ returns a decision. As per Toastie on the talk page, "'obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial.'" The Local Jumpsuits have spoken. [...]  07:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)"
 * I think the poll should be referenced. I didn't know you were speaking of majority rule. Kels didn't vote and ey is perhaps the hawtest and (therefore) most influential LJ. Neither did Bob and ey is arguably hawter than Kels... arguably.
 * Are these supposed to be prescriptions that only apply to the rabble? Ace's vote appears to contradict eir behaviour. Ace and Gerard favour banning "persistently uncivil members" and deleting any "anonymous" comments which are suspected of being written by the banned users. They don't care if they are "obviously vile", only that they come from a "trolls" IP range and are maybe (unconstructively) critical.
 * From this project it seems the only thing Human and Ace agree on, is that anyone can delete whatever they want from their talkpage, if it appears to be the work of a "persistently uncivil member". But I think Human objected to Gerard deleting things from Gerard's talkpage IIRC.
 * Also the meaning of such suggestions would be clearer if you were to specify what should be done with the disobedient. ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ace did what now? AceX-102 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I didn't know any of this was happening until just now. Although I do appreciate being part of the Top Five Hawt Rats. --Kels (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hawt damn! Ratwiki should be renamed KelsAceWiki. AceX-102 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How 'bout HawtWiki, and we can be the Supreme Admins (even more senior than senior). Although there's always International Grand Champion, that's got a nice ring to it. --Kels (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * we'll be RatWiki "Overlords of Terror". AceX-102 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey wait a second. I never said Ace was hawt. The thing there is I've only seen that cartoon self portrait of Kels and my lack of any pic of Bob means my imagination has even more canvas to work with. Ace posts a pic on every other page but guess what? I've been meaning to tell you I don't find you pretty at all. If you were pretty we could give you a wig, makeup, and a useful purpose. But that chiseled machismo jawline makes that utterly impossible. Handsome perhaps, but that is a whole other genre.
 * Okay back on track here. Kels, certainly you have a preference on these matters. What is yar ruling on the poll?
 * What Ace did was uumm... I thought Ace favoured the deleting of anything appearing to be MC, but I don't have an example handy. Ey would not permit DG to be disciplined for disobedience from the ruling. That's for sure. Perhaps Ace could set the record straight right now. Do you believe that comments by "persistently uncivil members" should only be deleted if they are "obviously vile" (unless it is the user's talkpage)? Hmmmmm?????? ~ Lumenos (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is stupid
"obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial"


 * There is no such thing. Talk pages are community property. -- Nx  / talk 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And when a dog shits upon the communal sidewalk, the shit is removed. EddyP (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some people have a very wide definition of shit. -- Nx  / talk 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * YEAH! THAT E.COLI AND HEARTWORM INFESTATION IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY! TELL 'EM, NX! - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) Tend to agree with Nx on this. Although in practice we do kindof treat user talk as a semi-personal space  - e.g. archiving is almost invariably done by the user & it would seem rude to archive someone else's user talk page without asking first.   20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nx didn't bother raising this at the time, though he was the one who brought the case leading to the ruling in question. i.e., this is butthurt - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nx, are you sure you aren't thinking of that other wiki? ;-) ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "ruling" since the LJ is not intended to dictate site policy. That they appear to have done so here isn't a great outcome, but the best way of looking at it is that they've made a recommendation, or advice to the community. It's not yet in community standards, & only a few editors are really practising this (reversion of comments, vile or otherwise). I reckon it's about time to look at whether this is such a great idea after all. 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, and certainly beats the butthurt relitigation aspect - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * David, please just stop deleting talk page comments that are not offensive and let it be. 22:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

UNIVERSAL.TROLLING.POLICY.NEEDED.

 * As soon as anything resembling a troll comes along, the wiki immediately fractures into several arguments, to wit:
 * Is it actually a troll?
 * If it is, what do we do with it?
 * Is trolling wrong?
 * Is everything the troll does trolling, or only some of it?
 * It's getting pretty annoying to watch the wars across Recent Changes - annoying for me, at least, but I daresay the troll is having a great time watching the fireworks. EddyP (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * U.T.P. = Do Not Feed the Troll. Any questions?  22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can do the LJ thing unless we end up being unable to decide things in the forums. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 22:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a question. What do we do when that doesn't work? Or, more accurately, isn't followed? EddyP (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I think it's the LJ to make a recommendation, and if that doesn't work we head for the hills and hope that people are still here when we come back. We should have a decent stab at sorting this out in the various discussions running at the moment. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 22:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm bored
And so are you. Let's have a new election with no rules! 07:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why Hu? There should be some. The first one might be:
 * don't elect real trolls (how to identify them though: rules of identification follow...).
 * Bob is surely not a troll.
 * ... JimJast (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Breaking news
Suicide attacker who tried to get inside Loya Jirga tent in Kabul, has been shot dead by Afghan Police. BBC. Scream!! (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)