Forum:Loya Jirga/archive1

Le wiki, she is, how you say? Le fucked.
Alright, it's broken. DFTT doesn't work. People are binning, banning and vaping posts on other peoples' talk pages. TK and MC are kicking back and laughing at us. Armond left, and people are going on indefinite wiki-break. Discuss. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to comment, but I'm afraid it would be deleted instantaneously :) &mdash; Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs
 * Of course it would be deleted, since its only purpose would be to cause more drama. We've had enough of that. -- Nx  / talk 19:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't freaking out like this Human's job? --Kels (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole "We don't ban anyone except in extreme cases" can't work because there are far too many people thinking that "extreme cases" is "that which brings down the wiki." Some people, like MC, need to go, period. Banning for a bit may be what keeps him from being fed. Vandal binning someone who revels in being a nuisance won't do shit, and it's time people stopped being pussies and started saying "Enough's enough." Grow some spines and make tough decisions already. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't go ToP. I'll wither and die without you. Acei9 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this goes beyond the MC business. There seems to some kind of disconnect between what people want and what they get from hanging-out here. It may be worth considering the goals of RW and then see who fits? Communities change, and RW will not always be what we want it to be. Perhaps we should talk about what we want from RW? Also, how we deal with problem children like MC is worth solving. Last time this came up I was seriously pissed-off by a couple of people who seemed to be doing their best to prolong his stay through the faux court case business. The site is probably too big now to be run on ambiguity and agreements between gentlemen. -- 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, the court room bull shit was complete crap. Acei9 18:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I came to RW thinking that it was a wiki of pointing out obvious anti-science lulz and correcting the more serious issues with pages devoted to explaining why the anti-science was wrong. If people are here just to troll or have a place where they think they can never be removed no matter how annoying they get, then RW becomes SomethingAwful. We may have disagreements or not like what is posted, but when it's clear someone is here for something other than rational discussions and fun with the anti-science idiots online, then why should they be welcomed here? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is in separating the stubborn from the disruptive. Without getting in to any real-life examples, let's consider two hypothetical people:
 * Creationism4ever is logically odd and keeps using the same old tired arguments, but avoids getting to edit wars and the messing up of mainspace articles. This person is at time frustrating, but they can be easily avoided by just staying away from them. Once it's clear that they're not getting their way they'll move on to bug some other site.
 * fu_ckU is a messed-up individual who spends their time trolling the site, creating work for others to clean-up, and is difficult to avoid due to his need to insert himself in to the spotlight. This is the kind of person that we could reasonably censure, since we know already the effects that he'll have. DFTT doesn't work, and at some point even the most egalitarian and forgiving person has to accept reality and club someone to death with a brick. -- 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we just need to be consistent here, but also we need this wiki to work in such a way that it's possible to enjoy one aspect of it without the other sides creeping in. For example, someone who wants to just quietly edit articles needs to be able to find similarly interested people, and certainly doesn't need the recent changes list to be swamped by random nuttery. We're trying to be fair here, but without some kind of basic standards all we end up with is a system that allows the person with the loudest mouth to control what everyone else is hearing. Things are just a bit too fragile, and there's no reliable arbiter. -- 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think an awful lot of that is a holdover from the early days, when the fascination with CP was way higher, TK was way more active and so forth. There was this great fear (not on my part) of being seen as "just as bad as CP" so the whole thing swung just as ridiculously to the opposite end of the spectrum.  So instead of banning everybody it turned into banning nobody, and fear that any banning, binning, etc. unless it was for really, really, REALLY obvious shit, even for a short time, was just as bad as what CP did. And we can't have that, can we?  Personally, I've thought it was stupid and overreacting the whole time, pretty much opening the door to any troll and disruption that wandered in.  And, as we've seen, that's exactly the way it's been.  Doesn't help that we've got longtime members doing shit like unilaterally unbinning MC, or sysopping TK, thus undermining the rest of the members who'd rather not deal with obvious trolls all the time.  If I wanted to visit Uncyclopedia, I'd visit Uncyclopedia. --Kels (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to lie. This wiki had become to liberalism what CP is to conservatism; a rather pathetic parody of what it claims to represent. A significant number of users here are more concerned with the welfare of trolls than the rest of the community, and the rest of the community has had enough. Fuck MC's right to what he laughably calls 'dissent', he has admitted that he only came here to troll, has vandalised and deleted articles, yet somehow people still think he has a right to do as he likes here. Ban him, ban his socks, ban anyone who comes here to troll, insult or disrupt. And revamp the current system of decision making; the current system is that 50 people with diverse beliefs have a vote and one veto throws the whole bloody thing of the tracks. EddyP (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points, and we have 'crats for control reasons. Earthland's a nutter who apparently has learned to stop being a nuisance elsewhere (hopefully), and thus is part of the 'tired old arguments' without messing up the wiki anymore (let's hope). But MC, it's obvious people have major issues with his ability to post here. Banning obvious trolls causing trouble isn't what CP does (Bugler?). They ban people with opposing viewpoints, or who seem like they would be parodists. We welcome parody here, so I don't see the equivalence of banning = CP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with allowing the Village Idiot to spew his nonsense if he wants. I can ignore him, but some people can't and it creates unnecessary HCMs, like the whole trial bullshit. So that's why I've decided to remove his posts from now on. If you can't stop feeding the troll, then we need to keep the troll away. -- Nx  / talk 19:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (To make it clear that RW is a place where everybody bitch at each other) Irrational (I hope you don't mind I use only this name), you are an outrageous liar. After it became clear that I'm not willing to discuss the horseshit you posted on my essay's talk page, you begun spreading libelous lies about me and use every opportunity you have to call me "nuisance", filthy provocator. --Earthland (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job, EL, you just lost my fragile support for your position by being an ass. 05:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew you would understand me, Powell. --Earthland (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring this dispute here. -- Nx  / talk 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, this isn't the time for settling what is essentially a disagreement between two people. Personally I'm happy enough with the general mix of writing and silly. The thing that seems to keep causing us problems is our inability to deal with things that are annoying a lot of people. It may be worth having a read through RationalWiki:Community_Standards and deciding what's working and what's not? I think it's a good article, and we'd do well to follow it more closely. We just have to avoid mistaking people who irritate us for trolls. -- 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments above seem display frustration with the decision-making process: decisions don't get made. Has the time come to dispose of the mobocracy? Is this part of Operation Flying Sedgeway Banana? The end of RationalWiki on the internet is near!!! Broccoli (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal
The first problem is dealing with trolls--not people who disagree with the the conventional wisdom of the site, but people who are here only to insult and cause friction. This is a troll. I hereby propose that when DFTT fails to work, any three people who have been on-wiki for more than a year and have made more that 10 mainspace edits in the previous month (i.e. people invested in the site) may reach a consensus that the troublemaker is a troll. This labelling may only be overturned by another consensus of at least four similarly-qualified editors. Trolls and their IPs will be banned for a period of one month and then placed on parole (i.e. vandal-binned)for another month afterwards. If sufficient evidence or a strong enough hunch exists that one individual is using several IPs, the clock starts at "zero" every time he/she trolls from a new IP. Discuss. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not go the distance and set up a committee on blocking/binning, composed solely of experienced editors? Call it Miniluv. Broccoli (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, as long as we have a clear definition of what a "troll" is, then I can agree in principal with ToP's proposal.  21:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trolling becomes obvious. E.Land - not a troll, MC - troll. Acei9 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. Either TOPs idea of any three editors, or a chosen bunch (as suggested by Broccoli) would work for me. The main thing is that serious action shouldn't happen by fiat. -- 21:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree something must be done because this site is being walrus-fucked. I like ToP's suggestion and editors, even senior ones, that do things by fiat need to know that its not on. We need a tougher troll stance. Acei9 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We talked a while back about what crats should do and who they should be. Could this be something that crats would steer? Perhaps making sure that there's a few crats in this group? Crat powers would be needed anyway if promotions/demotions are needed. Besides, no-one should be a crat if they can't be trusted to deal fairly and sensibly with this kind of stuff. -- 21:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC)Starting with a definition of troll, how about looking at how other forums handle it? Pharyngula has a similar crowd to what's here, raucous and intelligent, I'd guess that how he handles who goes in the dungeon would apply here pretty nicely. And wonder of wonders, using it hasn't driven anyone away, or at least anyone who matters. --Kels (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How "he" handles it is probably just unilateral dungeoning of whoever "he" thinks doesn't belong. It doesn't drive his buddies away because they hate the same people? It's a one-person blog, this isn't.  05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * le sigh. How many times do I have to say this?  I only brought it up because we could use his definitions of disruptive behaviour as a starting point to figure out our own based on our needs.  The mechanics of how he bans them and the format of his blog are utterly irrelevant. --Kels (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Le simple, I am reading my printout of this page and hit this point. He simply blocks who he doesn't like.  One man, one blog.  Please to ask him how he does it before telling us to do the same thing?  Let us ask him for his "definitions of disruptive behaviour" and see how they work here?  After all, "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" - I guess we have define "constructive dialogue"  How was MC not "constructive"?  Heart of Gold?  Cur? Anyone? Bueller?  Bueller?  06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're seriously asking how MC was not "constructive"? Seriously? --Kels (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Concerned. I don't want to rehash the 'crat convo - that one is worked out and most our 'crats are reliable. Anyone 'crat though should not make a unilateral desicion. I don't wanna pick anyone out but Humans unilateral sysoping of TK should never have gone as HCM as it did. 'Crats need to set the example and steer the course. Acei9 21:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The thing with Human shouldn't have happened in the first place, and the fact that we never really got a straight answer for why it happened really says that 'crats should be more aware that they're the ones who are supposed to think of the best interests of the community, not just what they as individuals want. --Kels (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A major problem with ToP’s proposal is that the blocking/binning system would become very inflexible, and the changes to the rules (or redefinitions of the word ‘troll’) that will inevitably become necessary would presumably require ‘consensus’, which would bring us back here again. If a committee was given complete control over problem editors, then they could decide which editors need to be politely removed and the appropriate method or length of removal. Oh, and Pharyngula might not be a good model, since it is effectively autocratic. Broccoli (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, we incorporate a Cabal there is no cabal. eleven or whatever other odd members, elected by the plebes, needing a quorum of seven or whatever, majority vote to troll someone. Elections to be held soon, process TBD. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Broccoli: I wasn't so much talking about the method of removing problems so much as the sorts of people being removed in order to let the place stay fun. We could take that as a starting point and simply alter it to fit the situation here.  --Kels (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "sorts of people being removed" ooh, that's ugly phrase, although I hope I know what you mean. 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok mostly, but for example Godbotting conflicts with the "we invite people with other viewpoints" stuff. Not a bannable offense IMO, on its own, only when it causes disruption. -- Nx  / talk 22:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this should really be for disruption, and we need to define that. It's not so much a case of having a checklist, but a clearly outlined spirit in which this should be used. Strict rules encourage people to find workarounds, and that's one of the fun parts of trolling. Having a clear spirit and intention behind this, along with a group who will have the final say is what should reduce the chances of us lapsing in to HCM. Ace, good point about the crats. I wasn't suggesting we remove or add them, more that they'll be needed to make this thing work. -- 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A viewpoint, not that anyone will notice
I've been around these parts a long time, but am coming here less and less. It's just become childish, the level of actual debate has gone way down, "it's not as funny as it used to be", a very few editors treat the place like their own fiefdom, and there's all that bickering and noise, which I just avoid. But the most annoying thing of all is all this endless debating about how to run the fucking gaff. I thought it was bad when RA was busily trying to run the place like the State of Wisconsin at one point a few years back, with all these complex tripartite negotiations and poliically-correct inclusive voting schemes, but now it just seems like the place is populated by people who are studying for their MBA's.  And that's, frankly, just really really dull. So, this might be me flouncing out of here in a hissy fit, but probably not - I'll probably just continue to drift away and spend less and less time here, in a more and more undramatic way, until eventually, like all the other good editors, I'll have faded away forever. I hope those of you who enjoy beaurocracy and administration can all figure out a way to run the place - it was far better off without you all, frankly. DogP Marmite Patrol 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll miss you. Acei9 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ace, likewise.  I'm not gone yet, just finally voicing my discontent.  But I won't be hurling any more cash this way, I'm afraid.   DogP Marmite Patrol 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its people like you, DogP, that make this site great fun. I hope you do not leave and I share your discontent. Perhaps, instead of throwing cash, help out by throwing in on a solution to our ills so we can regain that awesome RW feel. Acei9 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see where the Dog is coming from. it's not like my modest proposals are coming from some raging hard-on fro administration and bureaucracy; the fact is, however, we can't run the place like it was in 2007-2008 anymore. it's gotten too damn big. either we turf everyone after user #200 or so, or we find a way to go with the flow that tries to keep everything fun and fair but stops up some of the holes....TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC x2)Same here DogP. It used to be fun and interesting, now it's just stupid arguments all the time. Marcus Trollius Cicero came to disrupt the site and press all our buttons, and voila! now all we ever do is argue and bitch and moan about how to deal with people who don't fit the site. And it's us destroying ourselves through being afraid, as kels said above, of "being like CP." Totnesmartin (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never understood this "being like CP" nonsense. Someone comes along merely to cause shit, then off you go in the most impolite manner possible. It has nothing to do with "being like CP" but has everything to do with keeping this place fun, interesting and stress free. Acei9 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think it's just the depressing truth of the Worst of the Public.  Let enough people at something on the internet, and it's just turns to shite.   A shame really, there's great people here.   And those who are trying to do something about it are doing the right thing, but I'm just saying that life is much, much bigger than what was a tremendously entertaining and diverting internet forum for debate and pointing out idiocy.   And when that diversion becomes like the rest of life, all bogged down by administration and bullshit, well, the problem with the internet is that it's just so easy to move on.   I freely admit that my response may be the Lazy Man's, but life's too short etc.   DogP Marmite Patrol 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Proposal.
Thanks a lot, Trent. We had fun. We had a good run. But it's Old Yeller time. Discuss. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to write a long rant to reply to DogP, but instead I'll just add +1 here. Let's just drop the whole mission bullshit, and turn this into a place to discuss CP or what you had for breakfast. -- Nx  / talk 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, God. Please, please don't shut the site down. This'll be over eventually. 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Things seem to be settling down. Looks like none of these proposals are in any danger of being implemented. Broccoli (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still need to work on getting everyone we lost back. EddyP (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This followed the pattern remarkably well. Random HCM about something or other (What was it about? I don't know) sends the wiki spinning into chaos. Then we start this forum thing, lots of people throw in suggestions about how to stop this kind of thing happening... and then everyone wanders off and nothing changes. Broccoli (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I think we should push ahead with one of the ideas. The problem of not really having a hierarchy is that I've no idea who could actually do this. In theory a group could just come together, but there's no real reason why everyone should take it in any way seriously. It'd totally defeat the purpose of having them if we end up in the ban/unban cycle again. -- 00:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one like RW and, for christs sake, I don't want this fucker to sink. You can count on me. Acei9 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See, now we have a real editor, we might have a chance. What do we do? Put it on the intercom? Broccoli (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about just inviting people to stick a name in the hat, and base elections on that? This really wouldn't be like signing up to be the RW El PresidenteTM. It's literally just a small group of people who'll make the call before the shit really hits the fan. I don't think this should in any grow in to some kind of cabal that affects everyday things here. We'd probably want to have a clear understanding of what trolling is though, and what happens if someone just won't stop prodding the ants nest. I'm tired and hungover, so a bit stuck on how to define it in such a way that it wouldn't be used as an excuse to bin someone just because they like talking a lot. -- 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ECx2)I would add my name, but I really don't have the time. I shouldn't be here as much as I am, given my courseload (animation generally requires a HUGE time commitment).  But I can play Wise Counsel and occasionally whisper things that make sense into the ears of the powerful. --Kels (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We all know what trolling is, disruption is the game. I'll also play wise counsel, I have nothing to lose. Acei9 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Count me in as well. Not as "El Presidente", and I hope it doesn't become something requiring a headmaster, but I'll be just another warm-blooded being who likes his RW.   00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Count me in as well. This should be a pretty rare thing to have to deal with, but we just need to know that there is something in place for this. -- 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We should, once the dust settles, have a separate page similar to "Administratice Abuse" for these situations, for discussions and otherwise on a case by case basis.  00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely. There probably should be just a page where it all takes place, so it's all transparent. -- 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * cue stirring music. I'm in, if they'll have me. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * unsolicited comment :) - I dont know the power structure here, but what to me looked bad in the last few days was the infighting over bans, unban, bin , unbin etc that happened between some users. Perhaps a policy that once binned only specific people can unbin and that group can permaban if needed. I intend to look in if I can but I am now caretaker for an invalid 15 year old girl, so my time is pretty full. Best wishes for this sites future Hamster (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's hopefully something that gets fixed. It's about having some kind of consensus and less arbitrary action. -- 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And once binned, unless there a strong reason otherwise, STAY BINNED! Acei9 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was what got me, too. The unilateral binning/unbinning and blocking/unblocking, because we couldn't come to a final solution.  That is indeed the biggest issue.   00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once someone is binned or block we need to just move on. They are there, they can still use email to plead a case to be posted somewhere, but it should end there. Acei9 00:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to get over that worry of being "authoritarian". If someone is only here to disrupt - fuck them. They can go to aSK. Acei9 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I mentioned something along those lines before, that if you're gonna bin someone, then you have to include a binning reason so we know why. If folks don't think it's justified, we have a place to object, and that can be done.  But no unbinning of any sort without discussion and agreement, plus an unbinning reason entered in the blank, otherwise they go right back in the bin.  Set it so there's only one place this discussion takes place instead of spreading it over the whole wiki, talk pages, unrelated article pages, etc., and there's less disruption. --Kels (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kels here. 05:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ECx3) So will we be resetting the level of consensus needed for binning/blocking at either x experienced editors or x editors from some kind of group? Because what can happen now is that editors achieve 'consensus' before the rest of the wiki notices and stops them. Also, a group tasked with binning/blocking would be able to be as authoritarian as the members deemed it necessary to be. Broccoli (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's basically what sysops at most other sites are for. Someone to handle that stuff so the general membership doesn't have to bother with it, and can get on with having fun. --Kels (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it'd be the 'crats though....Acei9 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's basically just shifting the titles up a level, although it's nice that everyone has ability to bin clear vandals (blanking pages, etc.) without delay and can move pages and so forth. --Kels (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont see a problem with a sysop binning someone (assuming they can), as long as its clear that its a serious action, but once binned, ot needs an agreement to undo, probably beurocrats (darn spelling) Hamster (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the benevolent cabal idea, personally. Corry (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How does "Shadow Government" grab you? --Kels (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. so....TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(There is no Cabal Shadow Government)
It has been suggested that RW is in need of a benevolent council of experienced members who will work to limit the impact of trolls and other negative aspects of our community. If we're to do this, we need to figure out: TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who?
 * How to choose them?
 * How long would they be demoted into the Shadow Government for?
 * What will their powers be, both in terms of wiki-software abilities and administrative powers?
 * Obviously you can't self elect but I am willing to help. I am frequently on RW and at times when others might not be due to my southern hempishere proximity. Acei9 04:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But the above being said, why not have a rotating system amongst the 'crats? A couple months each way? Acei9 04:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something a long the lines of that--you get the gig for three months, have to take the next three months off, then could put your name in the hat again. We want this to be a firm set of procedures with a minimum of bureaucratic rule-making, though.TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the big focus at the moment is the trolling issue. Once we have a plan to deal with it and deal with in a timely fashion we may find we need no other bureaucratic nonsense or so-called "rules". Acei9 04:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. We should also decide how many are on each shift.  04:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need a "24 hour" group I'd say, we have 'crats from all over the globe so thats fine. 10 too many? 5 too little? Acei9 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ten seems steep, and we probably should go for an odd number so no ties in votes (barring abstaining votes). We'll have to go through the crats time zones and editing habits to cover the 24 hour time period.   04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seven is a nice mystic sounding number, but nine is the number of the supreme court (good name too, the minority could even write a dissent if they wanted to/cared). 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like 7. Sounds good. Acei9 04:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds a lot like one of CUR's conditions of return is that we appoint a group to actually control discussions on the wiki before they end in flame wars. Now all we have to do is take Therianism seriously and we can have our pet twerp back. 04:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't actually be all that bad. Sure, he was annoying at times, but he at least provoked non-breakfast related discussion. 08:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * is the idea a group with a minimum number concurring on decisions ? Hamster (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only ones which need to be made quickly and without the chance of a single dissenter screwing things up, I should think. We need to rework the voting process, though. 08:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to serve in an advisory capacity, but that's about it. See above, re lack of time to devote to wikis. --Kels (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also willing, but not for a couple of months - I'll be out of my personal woods by then (hopefully). Totnesmartin (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can watch from the European side of things. Realistically though I don't think we need a lightning fast response, so long as people know that within a day there'll be some kind of action. We have enough good people to be able to contain things until they can be properly looked at. The only reason I can see to need a lightning fast response would be if a sysop has gone mad and is doing a lot of damage. Short-term temporary action, such as promoting someone and binning them won't cause problems if there's the understanding that there'll be oversight of that within a day, so the worst that could happen is a rogue crat keeps you away from the site for a day. Like EddyP said in the other thread, we need to be thick skinned. -- 11:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really familiar enough with this place to be of any help vis a vis T3h eb1l shadow government, but I do think we need a group of trusted long term editors who can cool things off before HCM kicks in, and conduct a mopping up operation to deal with the worst of the trolling/vandalism. I do think the manner in which demotions are handled has played a part in this, and there needs to be some rationalisation. I was given a demotion with barely any kind of track record on RW (largely because my getting banned at CP was WIGOed and my "parthian shot" embarrassed TK - interesting/amusing maybe, but not exactly making me trustworthy or even useful as a janitor as RW). --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 18:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the necessities for me at least would be a tutorial and hand-holding. This may be what [[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] is suggesting.
 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Potential Shadow Government Members by Time Zone
This is not a voting procedure, just a place to gauge interest--and to see if we can maintain 24-hour surveillance.

UK / Europe

 * Evenings (GMT), intermittent daytime editing at weekends. 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any time. 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -- 14:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC) GMT. On and off most days of the week, day and night. The benefits of a strange job.
 * 14:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Evenings and some afternoons.
 * - most week evenings and during the day on weekends. 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Broccoli (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC) some evenings during the week, and weekends. Provided we call it the Ministry of Love.
 * I actually live in Australia, but work UK time, or something. 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Totnesmartin (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I tend to find myself on the morning shift (8-12 am) here a lot, so I'll cover that.

North American Time Zones

 * TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC), GMT -5 hours, usually in the evenings, sometimes in the day (local time)
 * 15:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC), GMT -5 hours, potentially from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM (EST), but less often from work (7:00AM to 4:00PM).
 * Kels, EST, generally during the day, depending on classes, and all evenings, although usually busy with projects from now 'til the end of April. Not a lot of sustained time available, but willing to talk sense when I can.
 * Thanatos usually 9pm-1am.
 * -- 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Mainly at 6-10 CST.  I work Saturdays, though.
 * 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC) EST usually from somewhere in the afternoon until the wee pre-dawn hours, 8 days a week.

Western Pacific

 * Acei9 04:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I am around every weekday (because my job runs itself these days), from 7pm GMT to 8am GMT (Which for me is 7am until 8 - 9pm), sometimes longer and on rainy weekends.
 * Tom Moore fiat justitia 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I am usually online from 9pm to 5am GMT, and then again for a few hours at 10 and 11 am. Less so on weekends.

UK / Japan

 * -- While I am far from the most active of all users, I can be seen slithering around RW at about 6pm GMT - 8-9pm GMT, and when I'm in Japan (Summer & Christmas) I'm slithering around RW at around 3am - 7am GMT (The dawn patrol, as it were)
 * You're not a 'crat and the nominations are over. You can still vote, though. 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Insomniacs

 * Basically if you have gaps anywhere in 24hrs, I can fill them. Intermittent. --  = w =  18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UnicornTapestry kind of all over the map, mentally as well as physically– CET, EST, PST. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Title of this forum (cut from talk-page)
I am confused as to what the title of this forum means :( I tried reading it backwards, that didn't help. Help?  05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the smartass answer, and here's the less-smartass one: It's an Afghani term--a convening of the tribal bigwigs to make major decisions . TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I put it back there, dunno why some ass deleted it? "talking on forum talk pages is not allowed"? wtf?

I can't say I like the idea...
but it may have to be done. The trolls are feeding off the disunity. The fact that one person make the call to vandal bin a troll and another makes the call to parole them then one of our "discussions" follows. That is what the trolls want, because they get the HCM to watch. One of the things people tell you when disciplining a child is never contradict or argue the other parent's decision in front of the child. I would prefer to have a group call the shot and everyone respect it, rather than continuous fights. If you want to fight about decisions than do it at re-election of the group, rather than in front of the troll-child. Maybe a representative democracy is the way to go forward, now we have out grown our direct democracy. 05:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is unilateral unblockings/unbinnings rather than the mobocracy itself. We already agree, after all, that unilateral blockings/binnings are unacceptable. 05:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I can't figure out is how HCM ever came to be acceptable at all, let alone good. It's a sign that something about the community is not working, which is a Bad Thing. And yet we have folks who consider it normal practice without being alarmed, which baffles me a bit. --Kels (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mostly because I get drunk and do sometimes stupid things in the middle of the night. Look how many HCMs (apart from the last couple, I'm disciplining myself better now I think) revolved around me, one way or another.  Sorry :(  06:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, and nobody likes it. But I accept it as what I think needs to be done in order to keep the place as fair and fun as possible. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ECX2)@X But have we ever got a binning or not consensus from a large discussion before? 05:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Often. Except it never sticks because someone goes off and unilaterally paroles or unbans the offender, because either they personally don't agree with the binning or they're bored and want to watch HCM break out.  Again.  This is a lot more responsible (and dare I say rational), and let's face it we need someone to act like a grownup around here. --Kels (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, most of us like it here because there aren't any grown-ups telling us what we can and cannot do. Anyway, darling, I will re-read this whole page again and try to offer something constructive soon.  06:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of this could be avoided if we acted like a group when it came to dealing with trolls and the like. The troll will contact everyone slightly differently leading to fragmentation. I like the representative democarcy at face value - needs workings though. We do need to be RW all of us, not individuals at RW if you follow me. Acei9 07:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew, my sig change didn't break the wiki. Acted like a group?  Do the trolls we are concerned with contact people?  I think not.  They just rub different people in different ways?  11:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Acting like a grown up" doesn't mean being authoritarian (or, dare I say it, fascist). It means being responsible and having a grain of common sense. Yes, we get that you like the anarchy and you like the freedom. The question is, does everyone here agree with that. A community tends to be more than one person, and I see a lot of people that are friggin' fed up with having to deal with trolls, having to sit through HCM yet again, and not getting any action when they try to do something to fix an obvious problem. How many people have left, either loudly or quietly, because the place isn't fun any more? How many are on this very page, trying to think of a solution? I'm sorry, but "don't do anything about trolls" and "having someone in charge will make it No Fun Anymore" doesn't cut it, when it's already No Fun Anymore for a lot of people. --Kels (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cut from talk page
I am confused as to what the title of this forum means :( I tried reading it backwards, that didn't help. Help?  05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the smartass answer, and here's the less-smartass one: It's an Afghani term--a convening of the tribal bigwigs to make major decisions . TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And to whoever deleted this, fuck yourself with a nine foot pole at your leisure.  05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, they just moved the conversation over to the forum page, which makes a certain amount of sense. Keeps the whole thing from getting even more fragmented. --Kels (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) That was me. Nx said not to use this namespace, for some technical reason or other. 05:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense to me, it was a meta-question, and as such belonged on the talk page. Is there really a tech reason not to use forum:talk??? 06:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx said here not to use it. I think he said why as well, but I forget where. 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, just because they don't turn up in the index. Big deal.  Meta-topics are best covered in talk.  Since when did we delete talk page edits here?  06:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said you shouldn't use the forum talk namespace I meant it in the way Armondikov used it in that case, i.e. she was replying to the opening post. In this case it was fine. -- Nx  / talk 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall excuse myself at this juncture. 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Human, take a fucking pill. Things have been tense enough here today without made up bullshit over where a conversation ends up. Nothing got deleted, only shuffled around. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Human, weren't you just saying something about stirring up HCM in the middle of the night? Corry (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "printable" version of this page sucks, it ate 18 sheets of paper and lots of comments are one word wide on the right. MW sucks.  Leave the talk page alone and it's not an issue.  It was a simple question, and was answered, for crying out loud.  I didn't start this fire, I'm just trying to figure out who the arsonist was ;)  06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude. It's been a long fucking day. Let's have drink. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Human- you print out RW pages to read them?
 * ToP- I'm finishing a paper right now, and I think that's a very good idea. Corry (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @ ToP, I am, thank you, and I hope you are too ;). @ Corry 1, never before, but this thing is long and I'm trying to digest everyone's ideas in a warm room.  06:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I normally browse on the iPhone, but I promise that I never post when I'm sitting on the toilet. That'd be creepy.-- 11:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some new ideas...or looking at some old ones will help
E-Dialogue "Creating an Inclusive Society: Practical Strategies to Promote Social Integration"

This might be too rudimentary for the members here, but it never hurts to review the obvious, does it? How to run a forum (technical aspects)

Karen Rants: Internet Censorship and Cyberbullying on Professional Business Internet Forums

Understanding the Internet Community

--TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please I beg you, do not feed TK at this time. Lets get our house in order. Acei9 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could just block entire cities and countries because of one editor. While sitting in on Slayer recording sessions. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I blocked him for 3 days so we could get stuff in order without his trolling and he sent me an email reminding me that he was RW User #45 and accused me of having no class. He got an appropriate response from me. Acei9 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So block the prick for another few days. No one will care.  11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will (or someone else I suppose) if we haven't sorted our shit out in 3 days. We don't his help or lack thereof. Acei9 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we can infringe his Human rights for a few days in the interest of national security. As a support of the PATRIOT ACT I am sure he will understand. 11:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did anyone actually read TK's articles? They were interesting, although I'm not sure if they are very applicable to our current predicament. 14:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a read through them. The concept of Lex mercatoria is interesting, particularly with regard to Ex aequo et bono (Wikipedia: wp:Ex_aequo_et_bono). The problem with handling things like trolls is that it's difficult (and arguable restrictive) to have set rules being used to determine whether or not someone is a troll. It's more likely to come down to rationally discussing the intent and the effects that the person in question is having, and then acting based on a reasonable consensus. -- 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear fuck
Wow. A lot can happen when you take a few days off. I read all of the discussion above and I am stunned. I don't really have an opinion, and I'm not interested in "governing." So I'm just going to watch and occasionally insert my two cents as all this shite goes down. I do have this to say, though: perhaps some form of leadership was inevitable. Look, for example, at early American history: the Framers learned that it is sometimes necessary to wield power so that they might keep peace and order. In any case, I hope you all realize that this whole ordeal is a very interesting social experiment. That is all. 14:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole business (not just this page) is an example of why I gave up being an anarchist. In the end, it just doesn't work because no-one can deal with disruptive elements. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And another thing...
I think we should do more to encourage on-mission discussions and debates. They've gone down somewhat lately. 15:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The ongoing abortion arguments could be an interesting debate if they could narrow the scope to focus on key questions without it spiraling out of control. -- 15:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add a header to the Saloon Bar saying that things posted on it should be tangentially related to the mission? I'm not sure about that one. 15:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A header would be nice, but probably won't be paid much attention to since a lot of folks don't look at the top of the page much. Better would be to show interest in the good ideas articles can be made from, and have folks spin off articles from them more often.  That, of course, would include not insulting people who actually do make articles for poor grammar or organization or something, which I think happens way too often. --Kels (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like many things, mainly by Human. 15:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't really want to name names or nuttin'. --Kels (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EC)Things already spin off to the forum & could then spin off to Articles, There's also the To do list, of course. H's powers should be inversely proportional to his alcohol intake. 15:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I think he got into the hooch Fox left behind. That's some potent stuff. --Kels (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, forget I said anything! Yes, we need to thank people for writing articles in the first place, rather than denigrating their style. 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm done. I think the issue here is to try to steer the "culture" of the place back to a more encouraging style, where we generally value contribution over simply goofing about.  And I say this as someone who is all to aware of their own lack of substantial contribution.  More spinoffs from Saloon Bar and less from CP might be a thought as well. --Kels (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also steering things so that we have an atmosphere tolerant of dissent and debate. 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support creation of more main-space articles that are mission-relevent in the broad sense of the term (i.e. debunking woo, pseduoscience/history/archaeology, conspiracy theories, political propaganda etc., rather than just going after CP). I don't agree with "branding" the Saloon Bar though. The site needs a place where editors can socialise and form a community, and that is one of the strengths of RW. ditching Saloon Bar could wind up in a 90/10 Rule, as people will still talk off-topic, just on talk pages instead of Saloon Bar.--[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is thinking of getting rid of the Saloon Bar. A place like that is valuable, since it's the fertile ground that produces the ideas that turn into solid articles.  What we don't have as much of, I think, is a culture that encourages "harvesting" those ideas and turning them into something that adds value to the wiki.  --Kels (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My difficulty with on-topic articles is that what (vanishingly) small amount of knowledge I have has been exhausted. I am very passive when the experts take over, all I can offer is opinion, but I do like to keep tabs on the general doings of the Wiki. Things like MC & the associated HCM are easily curable by just blocking him and his socks. TK does no particular harm except when he battens on to newbies & convinces them that he's a benevolent character. Earthland expects us to bow down to his superior intellect (CUR anyone?) and tends to throw tantrums when we don't otherwise he's mostly harmless. Human should curb his early morning vituperations. There's a hard core of editors I'd trust to have the interests of wiki as a whole under their care. 17:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will confess, I'm not sure what to think of RW any more. I like the many people here a lot, and I've come to terms with the advantages and limitations of being CP-centric and the limited ability to produce new content.  Those progressions were inevitable, I think, and I don't know that we have much ability to address those issues without creative thoughts and maybe even some fresh blood in terms of users.  (I will say, however, this is becoming increasingly challenging as CP becomes less prominent.)  Allowing trolls to whip us in a frenzy was not inevitable and undermines our ability to attract new users, and I agree the the sentiment to deal with that issue.  I'm not sure it makes a future for RW clear, but it is a start.  Šţěŗĭļė 21:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User rights
Armondikov may have had a point: the current system of user rights will become impractical. We won't be able to get rid of trolls if 3-day-old accounts can unbin them, and the number of bureaucrats is probably too great. 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can bin/unbin and block/unblock be separated? Can we create two classes of blocking powers--one for fun blocks, and one for internets is serious bizness blocks? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work. I suppose it's that or have a higher bar for being a sysop than "you haven't blanked any pages for a half hour". --Kels (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it is quite useful having any user on the wiki albe to bin obvious vandals, perhaps the 'crats on the committee could just promote people who unbin when the committee has reached a decision. Broccoli (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if only the current bureaucrats had bin powers, we would probably be able to cope with all the vandalism we get. 15:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd worry that we risk undermining the element of trust we have if the rights are altered to any great extent. Personally I like the self-correcting nature of the vandal bin. If someone is binned for no good reason, that can be undone and a message sent to the person who did it (as we saw recently with the binning of User:Vm. The same approach can be used if people arbitrarily unbin people, and if it's a habitual thing their permissions could be reviewed. -- 16:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ConcernedR, That's pretty much what's happening now, and it's not working. Sadly, we need to limit some of this stuff to a few accountable folks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how hard would it be to jigger the code so a binning reason is required? Right now you can just leave it blank, which means it can be a mystery why a user is binned or unbinned. --Kels (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems the best solution is to stop handing sysopships out like candy and stop making people 'crats just because they've been around for a while longer. On a wiki this size there's no reason to have more than about 2 'crats and, say, ten sysops. Promote everybody back to normal, have elections for the "staff" positions and let the wiki operate the same way as wikis operate everywhere else. All the ideas I've seen on here are hacks to fix a situation that's only broken because rather silly decisions were taken from the start. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't want to work like other wikis (by which you probably mean Wikipedia). We are our own community, based on our own ideals. 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as part of that community, I'm only too happy to have some structure implemented. I was never on board with "sysop everyone" in the first place, and I've heard several people object to it on-wiki as a bad idea.  Just because we tried something out and it was never reconsidered, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. --Kels (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Phantom, but it looks like there's going to be some kind of oversight committee to decide on policy and implementation. That is exactly how other wikis (and I don't just mean WP - the stifling bureaucracy over there is way over the top) work, except they call the committee "sysops" and "bureaucrats" and manage it with existing MediaWiki functions. Why not use Occam's razor and go for the simplest solution - don't give everybody rights they haven't demonstrated an ability to use? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 23:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)