Forum:Loya Jirga

< Index | Site-related discussion

Lorchive 1 Lorchive 2

Resignation

I am herewith resigning from the LJ. Bob can take my place unless you want to have another election. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

let's give it some powers and use it.

OK. So we have a situation where this mighty body might come in useful. Some users have been doing things which, while not specifically outlawed, fail to pass a "reasonable action" test. I therefore propose the following.

• Where users have acted in a way which the LJ feels is clearly unreasonable the LJ may block said user for a period of time which it feels is appropriate.

• Unreasonable actions will include, but not be limited to: legal threats, general harassment of users both on and off site, persistent trolling and attempts to bring the wiki into disrepute using other forums.

• The LJ will be able to define "unreasonable" in any way it sees fit. To give a wide remit and reduce wiki lawyering.

• Any user may make a submission to the LJ, but frivolous submissions will be ignored.

• If the LF has decided to ban a user for a specific period of time then any sysop or crat who unblocks that user will be promoted to normal user for a period of one week. Any crat who demotes the user before the end of that time will be promoted to normal user. Repeat offences will win longer promotions. This is to to stop the usual block/unblock activity to which we are prone.

--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I see is that needs addessing (at the current time) is this one This is to to stop the usual block/unblock activity to which we are prone. SuspiciousRepellant has mentioned this previously. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. This makes the LJ the rulers of the wiki, which they most emphatically are not.--^talk 08:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made this proposal because of the debate going on here.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@AD: the LJ is elected by the mob, and has no control over editorial line or article content. It exists purely to put an end to the endless block/unblock wars with trolls, which lead to the usual HCM bollocks. If the LJ messes up, elect new members in May (I think the elections are every three months aren't they?) Totnesmartin (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because they can/will be replaced doesn't mean it's a good idea to expand their role. If you think someone should be blocked, block them. If someone disagrees, discuss it. If discussion fails to resolve the issue, then the LJ should get involved. From what I can see on the specific issue linked above, discussion is working fine. Drama isn't spreading much and there is no threat of a perpetual shower of crap on our heads. Let the discussion continue and resolve the matter.--^talk 10:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment what happens is that someone makes a unilateral decision and then somebody else reverses it. What would be nice is a process which regularises this. It would also be a good to have it before HCM breaks out.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone makes a decision, and if someone else disagrees they reverse it. Then they talk. There are some specific times HCM breaks out, and "when people are reasonably and politely discussing the issue on the relevant talk page" is not one of them. I just don't want to see any mission creep occur here. Ideally, we will never need the intervention of the LJ.

But let's say that another troll suddenly became persistent and people couldn't decide and discussion proved impossible, with some people making broad declarations about their decision and other people threatening to leave. Then we'd need the LJ. Until then, let's let the mob sort it out.--^talk 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi AD. I don't want to fall out with you over this, but you wrote above: "Just because they can/will be replaced doesn't mean it's a good idea to expand their role." What do you think is the role of the LJ if it's not something along the lines I suggested above?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We're in no danger of falling out, no worries.

Their role is here. The issues you list above are all regular sysop things, except the disciplinary thing at the end. Anyone should be able to block people for making legal threats if they think it's blockable. If someone else disagrees, then there is discussion. The LJ "[a]ssist in editor disputes. Their involvement should be a last resort, resorted to after attempts at discussion." They also deal with trolls, but the implication is that again only occurs if there is disagreement on standard treatment.--^talk 13:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What Tom said. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Tom. In the last few days it seems a lot like people are in a hurry to use the LJ for something, & are skipping the part where we try to make a community decision first. & Expanding or codifying the LJ's authority before it's even been tested is a little hasty. We should discuss issues like the TK thing inclusively & vote on them if necessary. Only if there's a major deadlock or one of those situations where a few users are ignoring the majority decision should it be referred on to LJ. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bob's proposal, with one amendment - the LJ cannot act on their own. Issues have to be brought before them by the mob (or an aggrieved user, whatever). The Seven themselves are the only editors who cannot bring issues to the LJ. ħuman 20:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Bob's proposal (see the first paragraph) is very good and should be implemented. Refugee^{talk page} 20:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded (thirded?) But I'm off to bed now - be good, people. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fourthed. The repeated calls for the LJ to get involved at an early stage serve only to undermine the whole idea of the LJ. We need a clear understanding of how and when the LJ are let loose on the world. --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My toilet is a bit blocked right now, and if I take a shite and wipe my arse with luxury DogP 50-ply tissue it backs up and there's shit all over the floor. Could the LJ come 'round my gaff and clean my toilet please? That would be useful. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)