RationalWiki talk:Elections to the Loya Jirga

Previous results (sticky)

• RationalWiki talk:Elections to the Loya Jirga/February 2010

Proposal for new elections

We should hold new Loya Jirga elections as soon as they can be arranged. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How long will arrangements take? Тy^Talk. 03:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If it goes like last time, we will have a period for nominations and then a vote. The nomination period can probably be started immediately. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Have at. Тy^Talk. 03:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's do this. Blue (is useful) 04:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the fucking hurry? ħuman 06:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's going to stick their neck out? Тy^Talk. 04:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How and where do we start this, again? Blue (is useful) 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion: Project page, intercom. Тy^Talk. 04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Intercom, we are blathering here on the poll's talkpage. Тy^Talk. 04:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I will send out the intercom message. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How long should the voting last? 72 hours? Тy^Talk. 04:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

72 hours is ridiculously short. One week at an absolute minimum. Two weeks better, after the close of nominations. ħuman 04:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It was one week last time. I have posted a page with the rules from the last election, as well as I could hash them out. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is precedent to follow in this case: the formal voting procedure from the last election. One of the rules was that only those users who were members of the site before the election was inaugurated could vote. We can look up the rest. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, tragically, I am about to fall asleep, so I'll leave you guys to it. Тy^Talk. 04:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we now make RationalWiki:Elections to the Loya Jirga/May 2011? Blue (is useful) 04:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in the middle of trawling through the archives from the last election to work out what the rules were. When I finish with this, I will post the set of rules on that page; we had better allow some time to discuss these, in case I make a mistake. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Comments now being solicited. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we jumping the gun a little?

It seems to me that there are varying views on the rights that users should have such as here and here. I strongly think that we need to sort these out, and work out the respective roles of each layer of bureacracy (sysop, crat and LJ) before we have elections for the supposedly highest one. Whilst I am not an "RW is serious business" kinda guy, I think if people are dissatisfied with the status quo then we need to discuss how it should be changed. --Damo^Hi 05:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. "Jumping the gun a little"? We should have had these elections three months ago. And as for constitutional reform, I think it will be easier with a Loya Jirga in place than without. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no mention of constitution reform within the role of the LJ. Also, I think that since constitutional reform will necessarily involve deciding the role of the LJ, we need to establish this before we take elections. The LJ has not exactly functioned as it was supposed to, barely making one ruling in a year and allowing the latest HCM. Damo^Hi 05:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And how will not having elections help that state of affairs? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you don't elect your officials before you know what role they will perform. George Washington wasn't elected president, and then they worked out what he would do. I am fine with having no reforms at all, I just think we need to acknowledge that the question of the LJ is tied up in the questions of user rights.Damo^Hi 05:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

They're right, you know, LX. ħuman 06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We do have a role defined for the Loya Jirga now. The possibility that that role will be changed is no reason not to have elections. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We do? I missed that. If the role might change - or if the role is not clearly defined prior to the "vote" - is a really good reason not to hold a "vote". LX, slow down the horses a knot or two. ħuman 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Human on this one. I think it'd be better to wait a bit. --Kels (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. I await the decision of the mob and retire from the argument. Damo^Hi 06:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, the LJ is completely defunct. There's no point in electing a new one now because they can't really help sort out all of these new proposals, that's something the community as a whole will have to debate and decide. I'd also be careful of calling for new votes and elections all the time, at some point people will just start ignoring all of it. Röstigraben (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is little point in creating a new LJ unless we also give it power to act to resolve issues.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a page, RationalWiki:Role of the Loya Jirga, describing what the Loya Jirga can do now. As Damo said, this role does not currently include any constitutional reform. However, the Wiki has nearly been brought to a standstill lately by "editor disputes," one of the things the Loya Jirga is allowed to handle, and there are sure to be many more of them in any constitutional-reform debate. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. While I was in the middle of spending 3 days responding to some stupid kangaroo court I still added a new article. And Ty pumped his edit penis by five by abusing hot cat on it. All is well and the ship is high in the water, captain, now get over yourself. ħuman 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Listener doing everything?

As much as I dislike mob rule why is Listener doing everything here unilaterally? This site works just like it's supposed to. We're all kids here, how well-oiled should it be? For one, we purposely write in condescending and mocking tones. I don't know about the rest of you but I come here for a laugh. For years it was mostly to laugh at Andy but now other stuff as well. This election and re-elction and promoting everyone bullshit is too serious for me. I want somewhere to go where I don't have to be serious. If you're really going to muck it up this much I, for one, won't be around. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Listener doing everything here? I keep asking myself the same question. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Then STOP! This broken piece of shit wiki is just how most of us like it! δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why we're here and stick around, numbnuts. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my statement. It was not, "Why am I doing this? I should stop!", but, "Why are other people, who claim to want the reform, not doing this as well?" ListenerX^TalkerX 06:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a hint as to why others aren't doing this. We like it the way it is! Do you rearrange people's furniture because at times they bitch about a lumpy sofa? We all bitch about this site but it's OUR site. Please stop with the dumb ideas.δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 06:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You are here to complain? --62.142.167.134 (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't take it personally Lx, I think your reform proposals have been generally very good, and well received. And they are, of course, just proposals that we can discuss, not fiats. Damo^Hi 06:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not taking anything personally. My question was purely a factual one. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cgb07305 asks a good question. ħuman 06:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To which I will answer that what I have been doing here cannot be very easily described as "unilateral." Two other bureaucrats agreed that the election should go on before I trawled back for the rules. I have solicited comments on those rules (via the intercom) and even made some changes based on the comments received. The mob has had input at every stage so far. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Two out of thirty? And you think you are now the arbiter of votes and running the procedure? Get over yourself. ħuman 07:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@LX Really? The mob had input on the election that lasts 3 days in which at most 15 fuckers could express their opinions? Starting a 3 day deal on Monday is fishy, to say the least. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 07:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Note that the vote has not started, nor have I proposed to start it, nor have I advanced myself for arbiter. I have just suggested, as a starting point, that the old procedure be used. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And at what point will you notice that that was a bad idea? ħuman 07:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not actually expect that the old rules would be used. Most of the improvement suggestions so far — a week for nominations, using secret ballots — have been very reasonable. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. ħuman 07:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record...

...I' stand again but first I need to send a potentially offensive intercom message. Ace ^{of Spades} 07:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, look forward to your next message. ħuman 07:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You make some interesting points and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Before elections, aren't y'all supposed to attack a hotel's French maid or something? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Rational?

For a wiki that claims to be rational, a lot of what i read in the talk pages is irrational. bickering, blocking, refusals to consider all the evidence. it's kind of funny. i'm not a rational-ist by any stretch of the term (well, okay, maybe by a few stretches of the term), but i do genuinely enjoy reading this wiki. the main pages can be very funny, especially the stuff that makes fun of your guys's arch enemies the conservapedia guys. but yo, seriously, i'm scared of who you're going to elect to this loyal jirga thingy, because from my experience people here aren't necessarily very rational. (then again, i think your mission statement is pretty hard to live up to in the first place, but whatevs). omg, i have to stop coming on this site at night because it's so funny that i read it all night and don't sleep, then i sleep all day and i don't get any work done. sigh. Künstlerin (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We're people, not robots. We fall out, we argue, we have fun and make silly jokes - ON THE TALK PAGES. Now look at an article or two. That's what RW is about. Have a taste of the food instead of whining about the chef's temper. Also, we do actually pull it together when we have to. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Künstlerin has a valid point to a degree. Everywhere people fall out, argue, have fun, make silly jokes, etc. But these things exist in different degrees. In an excessive degree, they can all be a detriment to the cause of rationality. And culture is a big determinant of the extent of these factors. So it is a valid question, whether this site's culture is the most conducive to rationality, and maybe if it was somewhat different the site might be more rational? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the whole site have to be rational? There you are inventing your own religion and we haven't permabanned you. Is that rational? No, but it's fair. We can't be perfect all the time but we can, in between the silly internet drama, do the right thing. And funnily enough, we do. we can say rational things while being flawed people. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's irrational about it; AFAIK Maratrean hasn't been a problematic mainspace editor. 䯂 (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

People tend to declare opposition to their ideas as "irrational", even if their own points are completely and totally irrational. Rational doesn't mean being open-minded, it means being rational, and sometimes that means rejecting new ideas even if those new ideas might be true, because the new ideas have no evidence. (It was rational to deny the existence of Gorillas prior to having good evidence, even though we now know that Gorillas do actually exist.) When I see people dragging out the term "irrational" to complain about this site, I typically see it as a whine fest about how their particular pet idea isn't being treated fairly.

As for the drama and behind the scenes crap between people, social interactions are not rational... if they were, then high-functioning autistic people wouldn't be socially inept, and socially disabled. Complaining that drama isn't rational is almost a tautological complaint... like complaining about how water is wet, and snow is cold. It is an inextricable nature of the concept. I will agree with Totnesmartin that the fact that we haven't permabanned Maratrean shows that we're less concerned about rationality with users and more concerned about "fair"... or at least appearing to be such. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The subjectivity of "rational" is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, and people saying "you're acting irrationally!" when they really mean "you don't agree with me" makes me want to punch puppies in the face. That said, I don't think that's the point. RW wants to aim to be this zen-like figure of rationalism and respect, but is stopped because we have no structure to contain and control the irrational parts of the human psyche that just wants to fight, whine and drama-drama all over. Regardless of what the mainspace looks like, backroom bitching doesn't help the image and slows down progress. Any mechanism that purports to favour rationalism should have a mechanism for overcoming the inevitable failings of the individual, RW has nothing of the kind so that when the doors to acting foolish open there's no one to jam them closed again. ADK^{...I'll pilot your gyroscope!} 11:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Jebus fucking christ on an easter stick, ADK, you are so wrong in your stupid quest to "make us look good". You dumbass. You know what makes us "look good"? Two things: our better mainspace articles, and our endless behind the scenes bickering. You are making a complete idiot of yourself. Why not demand that every argument on the site be oversighted "to make us look better"? No. The arguments, the endless history of debates and discussion and namecalling, are, I THINK what makes this place impressive. Quit arguing for burying our dirty laundry so your rationalist www friends can be invited over for tea and GET A FUCKING CLUE as to what makes RW great. Hint: it ain't people whining about making our RC "pretty". ħuman 04:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

So we are to simply abandon the snarky point of view? Of all the humor of the webpage and devolve to humorless statements of logical positions? That has all the interest of a peer-review journal... and those already exist. What purpose would we hold for presenting such dry uninteresting logical syllogisms to prove all our points? We couldn't really put up Poe's Law, because that's not really fully rational, it's just an amusing internet "law"... People don't come here for "zen-like ... rationalism", they come here for the disrespectful and humorous treatment of fringe and crank science. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we just kick the trolls out and sin-bin the dramatists. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What he said. I'm actually a great fan of the snark. I think it's a great communication tool that avoids the usual dryness experienced by Wikipedia or some of Less Wrong's more... esoteric postings. The mainspace trouble happens when it takes priority over fact, but that's a different thing to this entirely. There's fun and there's encouraging and enabling people to act like asshats. A mechanism is required to deal with that because it just shuts down any semblance of productivity, rationality, respectability and reliability. ADK^{...I'll swim your beach ball!} 13:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that you cannot open the door for silly, and block out asshat drama at the same time. Hell, Wikipedia can't even block out asshat drama. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

True, but we don't all have to run around screaming just because someone took away a user right or changed someone else's userpage. But we CAN still have a laugh. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite easy to distinguish having a laugh and being a complete dick. I know pretty much everyone here has tried the "I was only joking, it's funny, don't be so serious!!" defence, but there are lines. Suppose someone said "hey, Eira, you're a piece of shit sucking scum you bitch-whore, why don't you yank Totnesmartin's dick until it's dry!!!!!11". Do you really think that's part of the acceptable level of silliness and fun that we both enjoy and encourage? ADK^{...I'll forage your lunch!} 14:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Suppose they did? Who are you to judge whether that makes Eira giggle and email Martin, if neither complains on-wiki? ħuman 04:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted, that phrasing is an extreme case, but I've seen things that aren't far off it in intent. ADK^{...I'll bamboozle your baseball bat!} 14:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(wistful look) oh, i'd encourage that...(reality sets in) oh, right, ahem, I see what you mean, yes... er...I'll get me coat. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how cute Totnesmartin is... but back on topic, yes blatantly offensive rants are blatantly offensive, and the mob has no problem with promoting and blocking people like that off the wiki. But not everything is as blatant as you make it out to be. I think it's blatant that Maratrean is an anti-rationalist, who is spouting bullshit in Essay space and thus subverting the mission of the wiki... but others disagree. Where do we draw the lines? How do we draw the lines? What is the justification for those lines being there? Frankly, people are drama. I don't understand why people don't understand this. 50% of all marriages fail and they're only trying to get two people to not be openly hostile to each other. Acting like we're some how above drama, or that it's even possible for us to elevate ourselves above drama is being naive and ignorant. Perhaps even willfully ignorant, because one ought to fucking know better. I think that by acknowledging that drama is unavoidable, and that people need to learn to fucking deal with it is far more rational than acting like once we get a "constitution" in place that all the drama will magically disappear because people will suddenly follow the rules. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The right to not be offended. Think about that. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And the pleasure of being offended in a place that does not censor such. THINK about that. ħuman 04:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell me if I'm being rational here

Moved to Forum:Tell me if I'm being rational here

The sentence that sums up the previous section

Quoth ADK:"Regardless of what the mainspace looks like, backroom bitching doesn't help the image and slows down progress."

Image? IMAGE? We don' need no stinking images!
Otherwise known as "OMG the neighbors are staring!"

I didn't know that hashing things out (yes, and again and again with each new batch of people concerned for the poor wiki), was hurting the brand. The stockholders will be pissed off...oh wait.

The way I see it people think that they are bigger than the project and seek to control it and run it like they'd like it run, smooth and efficient with minimum dramastormage: "Be reasonable" they imply, "do things my our way". This is actually the cause of a lot of the drama. But as we have learned time after time, the wiki is self-righting, once the storm passes things go on as before.

"...slows down progress".
That's killer, that is!
What timeline are we working under? When should the wiki be "done"?
We "work" the timeline like NASA I'd say, projects planned and abandoned with wild abandon; the "social aspects" such as they are, fall under three main groups:

• Those who come here and find a "world" wide open and free, ready to paint (or sculpt or lounge about) wherever they damned well please.
• Those who see a virgin plain ready to be divvied up into nice neat plots, where each can do whatever it is they want to do and a big communal garden in the middle.
• Those who see chaos and disorder; clearly, this is a "land" that needs to be tamed.

I've got a mental health disability and spend a lot of time out here in the intertubes and a fair amount of that here on RW but the wiki is but a minor part of life. If anyone considers this anything more than a fun hobby then perhaps they might want to talk to their therapist about that...if the wiki is damend important and you don't have a therapist...get one.

17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Well, to be fair, some of us are on the Board of Trustees and have a somewhat legal obligation and involvement with the wiki... but the day to day drama on the wiki? Yeah, that's not really important to me... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This sort of Old Guard attitude is actually quite depressing. ADK^{...I'll break your hybrid engine!} 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So you keep opining, ADK, what exactly would ye be doing differently? 00:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I don't mean to step on ADK's toes here, but she has been fairly explicit in that regard. Blue (pester) 00:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, "control". Okay. I understand that! (I don't agree with it but I understand it.) "Like-minded individuals" usually means "people who agree with me". Have fnu with that. 00:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Submit to the overwhelming need to obey. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Like minded" as in "have the same standards". Because yes, I want RW to look good and effectively dealing with the ones that want to cause problems is an essential part of that lest we develop a reputation as a haven for the dregs of the internet that have nothing better to do. But yes, frankly I think the people who think like me are the most rational, calm and fair of the lot. When was the last time I created a shit storm in the Chicken Coop, for instance? Sorry for wanting to build something better out of this place. ADK^{...I'll orate your home theater system!} 01:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like an issue you have, not the wiki itself. Glad you are so impressed with yourself, by the way. You want RW to "look good" by stifling anything you think "looks bad"? WTF are you thinking? Or smoking? ħuman 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RW:COOP. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not an answer. ħuman 04:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, it was a crappy question to start with. --Kels (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was calling the git out on his pomposity. Ironically on-mission. ħuman 06:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should work on your communication skills, then. --Kels (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, or possibly you could work on being less of a bitch and learn to read. ħuman 04:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I can read just fine. I saw a poor excuse for psychoanalysis, a straw man, and a couple of insults. I didn't see anything about pomposity, I'm afraid. Maybe it just wasn't clear enough. --Kels (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I called the git out on his self-importance and silly "make us look pretty". You did no such thing, and no I proceed to insult you for your competence. Intentionally. "frankly I think the people who think like me are the most rational, calm and fair of the lot" is the most pompous thing I have ever read on this wiki. ħuman 04:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"I thought this was RationalWiki!" Drink! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. This is the way I see things.

If someone truly cares about the wiki (mainspace) then they will work to make it better...adding information, cites, cats, copyediting et cetera.

The dramastorms over who said what and who promoted whom and on and on falls by the way if we're really focused in making the wiki better. Some of the drama is fnu even though lots of times it gets way out of hand. Apart from wounded pride and other ethereal unrealities nothing is "wrong". Grudges and the resolution thereof are going to happen; nothing a new constitution or a new LJ is going to fix! Being aloof enough to do the things that make it a better wiki w/o getting caught up in every bit of talkpage frooforall is the part of growth that needs to happen within each of us.

Still I do take your point that if the wiki isn't a fnu place to work who is going to stay offering free labor to make it better?

I think we just disagree over how much more would get done if the drama was brought to a halt, (for the most part): I'm of the opinion that not a lot more is going to get done, more people are here for the social aspects than for the wikiness of the thing. The part of your argument that seems to be saying, "if we had better control over the place then we could attract more contributors since what holds a lot of people off from joining up is all this rancor,"
doesn't hold much water for me.

Look, a college that doesn't have a drama department is a trade school; you get to learn one or two things but for fnu you're on your own, it's mostly busines. If you'd like to have a wiki that is mostly business then you're going to have to pay me a LOT more. 03:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

You are definitely going to get more done when the drama is fighting over the useful content. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To Cracker: My thought here is that yes, most people are here for fun and to socialize, and to some degree work on articles. It's that sort of place. Presumably though, they don't all come here in order to run the place. That's part of why I want more than anything to shift the sysops to a small group (and 'crats to an even smaller group) so users don't have to care about maintenance and crap, and just enjoy the Saloon Bar or whatever. Then you've basically got a bunch of gnomes or whatever you call them working the levers, and that's all you really need. --Kels (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think I spend any amount of time "running" the wiki? I have crat powers, and I haven't even touched them. I hardly do any sysop work either... I just read contribute, and read my WIGOs... giving people power doesn't mean that they have to go out and use them... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go, then. You don't use your crat powers or sysop powers, and don't actually do the job of either. So why do you need to keep them? It certainly wouldn't reduce your enjoyment of the place, or make it harder to do the things you like. --Kels (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I really cared nought for my recent coop event. Until my lawyer pointed out that the case as ridiculous. What care you, Kels, of the cratship I gave you without discussion? And probably the sysopship likewise? ħuman 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the cratship, I never did. I have used the sysop powers to revert vandalism and to block trolls, although around here it's common for others not to trust your judgement and undo such blocks. Presumably from your recent posts, you're overall against keeping trolls from trolling, so I guess that takes away part of the point of having sysops at all. --Kels (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I said nothing about trolls here. But, yeah, "troll" is such an awesome word to use to silence someone you makes you uncomfortable or points out ugly truths about the wiki. For the record, I like both Marcus Cicero (the speaker of truth) and RobS (the sometimes weird but often hilarious guest). Most people call them "trolls" and would love to "banhammer" them. No, we don't do that here. AND IF YOU ARE SO UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT FOUNDING PROPOSITION why are you so keen to be a part of this place? ħuman 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The founding proposition was don't do what CP does, for fuck's sake. And I'm not suggesting that. Hell, at this point I don't know what you think I'm suggesting. --Kels (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that I need to keep them. I'm just stating that unless you have a good reason, why take them away? Just so you can assert your personal autocratic vision of the wiki? You asked "why give people power X, if most people don't use it/need it?" Why give the population in general the right to vote? Since most of them don't vote, that means they don't need it, right? Some rights are given because people ought have them, regardless of if they use them or not. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as has been discussed elsewhere, everyone having the right to block/unblock makes the power effectively useless and thus makes sysops' jobs more difficult, especially when dealing with persistent vandals and trolls. Unless you like having that as part of the wiki experience, I guess, although I can't really see why. --Kels (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused... which persistent vandals and trolls? Oh wait, you just mean the people you disagree with... right, it is kind of hard to block the people that you disagree with here, and silence critics. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that must be what I mean, because I go around blocking people I disagree with ALL THE FUCKING TIME. --Kels (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that you were blocking them all the time. I said that the people you consider "persistent vandals and trolls" are just being labeled as such because you disagree with them. Your complaining about not being able to keep a block going on them suggests that you're not upset about the blocks you've done that don't get overturned, just the ones that were overturned, which likely means someone else in the mob disagreed with your opinion about the person... and thus you didn't have a rational reason to block that person in the first place. The number of such people and the frequency is irrelevant, I'm speaking to the motives of the case where it did happen. And arguing that it never happened seems stupid to me, because otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about how you find the power to block to be effectively useless when dealing with persistent vandals and trolls... so obviously, you've had to have experienced it... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about my blocks, hell I haven't blocked anyone for more than six months. I'm talking about what I see in Recent Changes. And it has a hell of a lot less to do with me disagreeing than people editing in obvious bad faith in order to stir shit up, rather than put forward a real position. I'm disagreeing with you right now, I've been disagreeing with people for days. Sometimes strongly. But other than OccasionalUse I haven't called any of them trolls. Now how can that be if your characterization of me is correct? As to the power to block being a useful tool for sysops, almost every other forum I've been on does that, including WP come to that, and it works just fine. --Kels (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so my later comment that it was obvious that you had to have experienced it was wrong... which makes me confused, if you've not experienced trouble at reigning in persistent vandals and trolls, then how can you complain that it's "effectively useless"? Are you just making shit up? So, I'm confused. And if you're not talking about anyone, then who are these "persistent vandals and trolls" that you think everyone can't control? Is it just OccasionalUse? That doesn't make sense because you used the plural, which means there has to be more than one. And if that's true, even though you're not naming names, you're still calling people vandals and trolls. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We should never do anything because someone on this website disagrees. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So I'm thinking irrationalwiki.org … --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's called conservapedia.com --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lest I be nominated again.....

I decline any nominations of myself to the new Loya Jirga. For numerous reasons, including "Goat" and "Felidae." Thank you. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

But those are the best reasons to nominate you. You in whether you want it or not. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What?

Who's the deceased member? Hateboy (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Toast (Susan) passed away. :( Nutty Roux (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? a stunned UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There will be a room for briefly mourning then exultantly celebrating her life at the animalversary party Fri/Sat on my talk page. ħuman 02:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I like that combination. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)