RationalWiki talk:Role of the Loya Jirga

Authority to lock pages

Loya Jirga should have the authority to temporarily (up to a fixed time span) lock a page to prevent escalation of a dispute/edit war. This seems better than banning editors (unless they show intent to escalate it anyway by spreading it to other pages) and is less likely to be seen as showing favour/bias toward one side or the other in the dispute. -- 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely temporary. Under normal circumstances, nothing on the wiki except a few critical pages and some User Pages should be locked anyhow. I'd say maximum of a day or two, although I'm not basing that on anything concrete. --Kels (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, maximum 2 days. There should be nothing, spare those few critical pages, that should require any more than that. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have almost never seen an edit war that was not troll-spawned, that was not worked out. LJ don't need this power, and it invites "Listen to me" behavior. We need to maintain egalitarianism as much as possible, so the LJ should get only those powers we've agreed are necessary. So far, all I see fitting in that category are anti-troll powers.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It only says "listen to me" if the Loya Jirga editor gets involved. If he/she simply has powers to lock the thread and force everyone to back off for a few hours (and I was thinking hours rather than days), then gives space for the situation to cool down and not get escalated to full on HCM. Disputes can arise between established editors over a genuine issue. it's not always trolls. The may be our biggest headache, but not the only one. -- 22:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Having the power to lock the page and force people to cool down or the like also allows them to give subtle ultimatums and for their voice to carry much more weight. It's not always trolls, I agree. But this is just not enough of a problem - minus the trolls - to warrant this power. We need to seek to maintain our valuable egalitarianism as much as possible. If this power is given, it should be to a different group of people who would be devoted to conflict resolution instead.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Tom. We'd need a pretty strong reason to justify it. The risk here is that take something that's for handling serious issues and allow it to bleed over in to minor disputes. Baby steps might be a safer way to do this. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Responsible to de-bin vandals as determined appropriate

Only group to de-bin vandals - reason to de-bin to be published ,

Only group to de-bin vandals they binned. Otherwise it's silly. Broccoli (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Only group to de-bin at all, I say. And definitely reason published. One problem we've had is people unilaterally unbinning people who were binned with good cause. --Kels (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Loya Jirga isn't for dealing with random vandals. A recent example saw a sysop bin a new user for vandalism that wasn't. Someone else unbinned. The Loya Jirga would only get involved if editors kept up with the binning/unbinning. Broccoli (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Abuse page

We need a section/page where people can appeal. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree there should be some means of appeal, though this was ruled out earlier, which I don't think is fair. Maybe have appeals page, but with restricted posting? I.e. only the "wronged" themselves and the LJ can post, so the whole thing doesn't get dragged in fractional fighting? Thinking of "MODS ONLY" in appeals on forums like NationStates... -- 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the Egyptian. Or he'll feed you to Sobek. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not make the old Admin Abuse page a page for appeals, and have the non-Leather Jacket 'crats handle appeals. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This idea of Gooniepunk's has been moved here and closed.

Private contact

Where will the discussions of blocking users take place? It says "off wiki," so primarily I'd assume email, but this is difficult/annoying/timewasting to make sure everyone in the Loya Jirga receives said email. Will there be a private page off the wiki which only the Loya Jirga can view? SJ ^Debaser 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that mythical cabal secret forum thingy still exist? Personally, I don't think that secret discussions are either necessary or desirable. If we keep a page of the wiki for LJ discussion only, & revert anything posted on it by non-LJ members, so be it. But I reckon it should still be a transparent process. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it still exists, but it is only used to swap pictures of non-Cabal RationalWikians naked. I wouldn't mind, but Human's collection of Ace and Nutty pictures is extremely extensive, I am not too sure how he gets them either. - π 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If the cabal Stonecutters Loya Jirga is only open to bureaucrats, can't the page be locked from editing up to bureaucratic level? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm NOT thrilled with off-wiki happenings. suggest a page with a protection level that LJ members can edit but all can see. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be transparent. We don't want to create any kind of little society or clique, or at least avoid it as much as possible.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (EC)

I do not like the private aspect. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This absolutely need to stay onwiki in a public place. Perhaps a Loya Jirga namespace? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(ECx2) If you must undermine the point of the Loya Jirga like this, at least hide the edits to this 'transparent discussion' page from recent change. Otherwise, people will keep trying to jump in and refute things, probably on Jirga member talk pages, leading to more HCM. Broccoli (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-LJ members should have the right to comment, as long as they're not actually entering or disturbing the LJ discussion. & LJ members should be people who don't fly into HCM because of a few comments on their talk page. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are technical ways to only allow LJ to edit their discussion page while still letting everyone view it. And I don't think much harm will be caused by allowing people to watch and perhaps even leave messages on talk pages. As far as terrible looming horror goes, the possibility of people providing oversight and context is low on the list.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say having the talk page open is a high priority, since one of the ways of preventing HCM is keeping discussions from covering half the damn wiki. Give people a place they can discuss matters and discourage them from taking it to user talk pages, saloon bar, making new pages and so on, and you basically short-circuit HCM. --Kels (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes still gets flooded, tempers still fray... but we can leave the talk page open. If it doesn't work, a solution can be found. No need to try to fix problems that don't exist yet. Broccoli (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes is starting to get unmanageable anyway, isn't it? Go out to the shops and everything's scrolled out of sight. It was inevitable we'd have some kind of committee someday, and this is that someday. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll toss in another voice saying no to secrecy. That's one guiding principle of this place I'd like to see stay intact. It's a good one. --Kels (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to create a Loya Jirga group that can only be changed server side, like Human's Newt group. That way Trent or Nx as our Supreme Leader and Reptilian Overlord ultimately control the group. Given them a Loya Jirga namespace that everyone can read (they will be able to any way if it is on the wiki, you can circumnavigate these things), but only they have the permission to edit. If you want private discussions (I don't) there is still the old forums. - π 01:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what Π said, but am assuming it means there are no technical objections to the proposal. I also concede the point on private discussions. Broccoli (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just seconding the transparent discussions, but LJ only posts idea. Also agree to leaving the associated talk page open. I endorse this message. -- 12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should still have a private communication method. What about a mailing list? Then if the membership does change every x months you can add / remove people as required? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this "conduct wiki business in private" thing. Is there a way to make a page's (or namespace's) edits not show up on RC and WLs, just to minimize clutter? ħuman 20:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank....

....I don't think the L.J needs be used very often at all. Before we get ahead of oursleves lets just take a look at we are actually heading up. A group to make decisions to avoid or cap HCM's, to moderate the more serious of editor disputes (No need for the L.J. to get involved because ToP calls SuperJosh a cunt for example) and then only those that spill over the rest of the wiki, to deal with serious trolls and vandals and.....well, that's it. We don't need little Ed Poors asking for writing plans or TK's blocking IP's. Just a moderation group that, I suspect, will be largely quiet most of the time. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU ACE! We have all been acting like the LJ will now be the absolute rulers of the wiki. I was picturing them more as a group that could only be called into action by vote of the other editors. Kind of like the Estates-General in medieval France. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn right. We aren't trying to drastically alter the wiki (well, I'm not, others might be), just stop the constant state of HCM. Broccoli (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But SuperJosh IS a cunt. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to reference things that are obviously true. --Kels (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We may need the LJ initially more often until they get their feet wet, as HCM has been occurring almost every other day as of late. After time, however, its activity will taper off, I'm sure. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell, me about it, that bloke's an absolute cunt. Ace has a good point, and it's interesting to note that the past 2 days everyone's been focused on the Loya Jirga, and as a result we've had essentially 0 vandal/troll attacks (more than likely because the troll(s) are wanking off laughing to this) and HCM has gone down to about 5 because everyone's so focused on how to deal with the situation. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Educated harmonic Hoover! 16:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It will remain largely quiet because most of the chatter will be kept behind closed doors as the peons on the outside await the cabal's verdict. Sounds like a good idea until you wake up server blocked. I continue to despise the cabal. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the more elaborate schemes, such as having three groups and so on, are way OTT for the size of the wiki, and limited roles we envisage for the Loya Jirga (all hail the Loya Jirga!) -- 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(Pi's right: it's not exactly vital.) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request from a Relative N00b

If there is one thing I would like to see the Lolling Jaffas do it's provide background information when an HCM is in progress. RW can be a very difficult community to understand at times, and although it's easy enough to find links to, for instance, User:CUR, it's nigh-on impossible to understand exactly what the circumstances surrounding a particular instance of HCM were. For that matter - unless you're nerdy enough to discover RWW, you probably don't know what HCM is. Or RWW.

Far too often, "debates" go something like:

I think X -- User A

Well you always think that -- User B

Yeah - we all remember the aardvark incident! -- User C

Oh wow! That was so funny! -- User D

Etcetera.

It would be very useful if the Littering Jam jars could provide background information in such cases. That way, new users can play their part in the debate without having to spend hours wading through talk page archives. I would point out here that new users can often provide a voice of reason when more experienced editors are locked in their ways. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Length of term

We really need to discuss how long any given LollaJalooza will serve. ħuman 03:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

6 months. 3 months means annoying elections or replacements or whatever coming up about it way too soon, and 12 is too long.--^talk 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose the solution that the octo-spiders use in the Lee/Clarke Rama followups to Rendezvous with Rama. Basically, their "war committee" is elected only in the event of war and then all members of it are killed after the conflict is over. I'm not advocating compulsory euthanasia here... except maybe in one or two cases... but my suggestion would be that terms last 6 months unless a) somebody steps down or b) there is a situation in which the Laughing Jugglers have to adjudicate, in which case they are all sacked immediately afterwards. All members would be allowed to stand again in the subsequent elections.

My reasoning for this is that it would allow the community to... ratify a decision and express support - or dissent - for the people who made it. I think this will give RW a good balance between power and responsibility. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds quite fun, SR. And Tom/AD, you forget how much RW enjoys these meta-discussions and voting. ħuman 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose four-month terms, mandatory resignations, and you cannot run in the election immediately following your resignation. You can, however, run in the one after that. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I like 6 months, it sounds about right. If a member resigns, then they are replaced until the term ends unless it is less than a month until the election (no sense in wasting everyone's time so close together). I see nothing wrong with multiple terms, if people are unhappy with a member don't vote for them. - π 04:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Allowing for constant reelection is not a good thing. It encourages stagnation and complacency. There absolutely needs to be some manner in which the power of the LJ receives a constant check. Either a three-term limit, or a ban on consecutive terms. Also, six months is way too much. It may seem like a short time, but this is the internet. In six months, someone can go from an annoying n00b to a bureaucrat. Power balances and alliances shift far, far quicker. The LJ needs a turnover rate of PDQ, if not much faster. Three months would be great, four is pushing it. A two-month term may be a bit short, though. Ten weeks, anyone? Or, perhaps we could deal with it like judges- every month, we pose a poll in the SB "Are you content with the performance of member X on the LJ?, and if there are enough down votes, that person could be removed and elections be held to replace them. Wither way, it is imperative that the LJ be able to be changed quickly and effectively. I'll draft up a proposal in my sandbox. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are taking this way too seriously. - π 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the individual performances should necessarily be visible: just the whole of the LJ's decisions. Suggest that (say) 4 of the members be up for re-election after 2 months, then the other 3 then 4 then 3 etc' ... ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 04:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We do that staggered re-elections with the Senate. Keating once described them as "unrepresentative swill", he was dead on there. - π 05:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ECxSeveral)If - and it's a big "if" - the LJ stays purely as HCM monitor, they shouldn't have to deal with too much stuff. I don't see a problem with somebody standing for re-election time and again if they haven't had to use the powers they were given on their election. My suggestion about compulsory redundancy after a referral to the LJ was a serious one. It enables the rest of use to judge the LJ and remove people if necessary. If people want to tweak so that LJ can't be re-elected straight after they used teh powah - that's fine, but beyond that I don't see why members should be removed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the removal after they made the decision is that the next election has the very high potential of becomming a HCM of over their decision. - π 05:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it would be a fun HCM. Haven't you noticed how we love to opine and vote??? ħuman 05:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)(Pi's right: it's not exactly vital.) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

True... but if the people involved can't stand, that should alleviate the problem to some extent. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

6 months and we keep it simple. Complications mean more nonsense and more opportunities for things to go wrong.--^talk 05:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am flexible on the time, but I am adamant on they stay until; their term expires, they retire, or a spill is called by the Loya Jirga. - π 05:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think 6 mos is too long. 4 is bettah for the kitteh. ħuman 05:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We should do a poll on this.--^talk 05:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay - π 05:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: can't be a straight vote: if (say) 2M= 10 votes, 3M = 2 votes, 4M = 6 votes & 6M = 5 votes, then obviously the concensus is for longer than 2 months - could be a problem? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is probably going to be more fluid than normal this debate. - π 05:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I had also thought of Toast's staggered election idea as it gives a bit more continuity/stability. May I suggest either two or three members (starting with the lowest number of votes) being replaced after two or three months. Once the original vote tally has worked its way through the system then the longest serving gets replaced. All former LJ members should miss one round before being eligible to be re-elected.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1 month

• Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2 months

1. hmmmm........

3 months

1. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Honey on toast, sounds good. ħuman 05:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Perhaps two even....Aceⁱ⁹ 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 11:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
5. -- 12:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC) three months good, six months bad.
6. SJ ^Debaser 12:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
7. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Three months is good. It's short enough so that people remember how the current members performed, but not so short that we spend all our time doing elections.
8. Sounds about right. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 04:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

4 months

1. - π 05:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2. I'd be ok with this but Time is Cubic! No trinitical Time! How do I make a minus #? ħuman 05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   You can indent on numbers. Time is cubic so we need four sided one month terms. - π 05:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

6 months

1. Can I vote twice? - π 06:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2. --^talk 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
3. We get really big HCMs about this often (more if CUR comes back), so at this rate the Joy of Lurgy members can get their teeth into something rather than sit around for four months and leave, going "what what that all about?" Totnesmartin (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yep. But I think in practice, given that most people have real lives, members of the Jirga will be dropping in and out more often than this. Broccoli (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

4 sided months

1. ħuman 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

П's recall idea

Per this discussion, I hereby propose that, if four members of the current LJ decide that the current LJ is not working, then the LJ is recalled and there is a new election of LJ members. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 04:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Westminster system is humanities great achievement, I can't see how it can go wrong. - π 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No argument (With Goonie). Wonder how we'd have been if Oliver's experiment had worked. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 04:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support Goonie supporting my idea. - π 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support Pi, supporting Goonie, supporting Pi's idea. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support Toast, supporting me, supporting Goonie, supporting my idea. - π 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I support anyone who said anything I agree with here. ħuman 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have destroyed the recursive meme. - π 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Pi's comment, inasmuch as it supports me supporting Toast, supporting Pi, supporting Goonie, supporting Pi. ħuman 05:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

$x_{n+1}=\mathrm {I\ support,} +x_{n}$ - π 05:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk about ending a serious discussion about serious business! ħuman 05:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an infinite recursion, it shall go on forever. - π 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Human for his support of Pi's comment inasmuch as it supports his support of Toast, supporting Pi, and Goonie who was supporting, albeit sardonically the initial proposal by Toast, which I wholeheartedly support with reference to reservations expressed in subsequent posts vis a vis the Westminster system, for which I would like to add the disclaimer that I in no way support the the actions or ideals expressed by Oliver Cromwell. -- 12:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the is close to the right idea. But he/she/it seems a bit repetitive in his/her/its prose. ħuman 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When does an issue become important enough to be decided by the Loya Jirga

We could always use this. - π 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

to me seems to be the most important question. When at least two members of the LJ decide it is? - π 04:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Or when someone appeals to the LJ? They can always turn it down & leave it to the mob after all. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The LJ issues a writ of Certiorari Goat? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - that wasn't meant to be as frivolous as it sounded. I mean that like the US Supreme Court and WP ArbCom, the LJ votes on whether or not they accept a given "case". A majority of voting members decides. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

EC) I think the question is: who decides to refer something to the LJ in the first place. Do "they" jump in or does it need someone else to put something to them? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think someone should refer a problem to them like ArbCom or they vote to intervene. - π 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

EC stoppit pi!) Does the LJ make decisions about "Mission" or article deletion and such "trivial" matters (if disputed, that is)? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 05:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say NO. The LividCholeras are mostly for vandal binning MC and his puppets. And maybe to intervene in nasty headless chicken modes. Not to "run" the wiki. ħuman 05:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No. LJ for serious business only. those issues rarely lead to HCM.TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on WP protocols, but I believe ArbCom usually works by having things referred to them but can also jump in when they feel a need. I suppose that answers the scope question too. If a "trivial" matter can't be settled elsewhere, then the LJ is the final arbiter. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I would imagine only of it has escalated into an all out brawl engulfing the wiki. The first Loya Jirga will set most of the precedents I would expect. - π 05:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to set rules for this. If they intervene too often, people will complain and they will eventually be replaced. Leave it to their judgment.--^talk 05:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AD, less rules. Let the mob decide at elections whether the Loya Jirga is doing a good job or not. If you are unhappy with them run against them at the election. Don't try to oppose or obstruct them during their term. *cough* Republicans *cough* - π 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't take into account the fact that the Republicans have also been elected to terms, and have just as much right as the democrats. --T1mS (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence my idea of a tripartate government. One makes the rules (with mob approval), one "enforces" them by bringing complaints, and one judges the issue. ħuman 05:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The mob makes the rules (the community standards debates, they are fun) and the Loya Jirga judges and then makes a ruling, which we all enforce by following it. - π 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get that. The mob is the legislature and the cops. The LumpyJoints are just the final arbiter? ħuman 05:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. However if someone is not enforcing it, say unbinning a vandal that was binned by order of the Loya Jirga, they themselves would require the attention of the Loya Jirga. So the mob and Loya Jirga would kind of share the enforcement thing by them checking the enforcement, sort of. - π 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Akchally, you slightly misunderstand me. The "enforcers", the cops, "bring charges" under tha' Law to the court. But no big deal, you're right, the mob can be the legislators and the police, the LibelJungle is then the final arbiter. ħuman 09:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a model you may wish to study, Understanding China’s Political System, CRS Reports, December 31 2009. It states, for example, that China's Constitution declares the National People's Congress (NPC) is the “highest organ of state power." Yet "in reality, for all of the PRC’s 60 year history, the NPC has been subordinate to the State Council and the Party Standing Committee." (pp. 1-3). Maybe be helpful. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)!

Thanks, Rob. And here's a model that YOU may wish to study. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Must be Laurie Duhe's kid sister, [1] working as Bill O'Reilly's ombudsman now. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Errrrr...........

I think this is all getting overly bureaucractic. More polling, proposed checks, "power" etc. I postulated on a talk page round here somewhere that all the LJ need do is ban vandals, assert mob rule without bitching (by which I mean actually running a mob poll without it descending into back-hand gibberish), and just, you know, moderate shit, get some direction. L.J doesnt mean those "in charge", just called in to kill HCM's before they get too heavy. We aint setting up the League of Nations here. This may sound glib but fears of power mad LJ foaming at the mouth and casting giant IP/404 blocks makes me fear that Alex Jones visited you all personally in your sleep.....heh.. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The LittleJinkers will be aboput as powerful as the League of Nations, don't worry. Whether I am on it or not, I'll see to that!^{campaign promise!} ħuman 09:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Their role seems pretty agreed upon (see the project page here) and it's very limited. It even notes explicitly they're not in charge or more important.--^talk 09:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that set-up. They should be more a safety valve than anything else. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The LovelyJimmies have no power. I like that. But you all knew I would say that... ħuman 12:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no point having this, if you are just going to undermine it or oppose it. We have decided to have the Loya Jirga as the final arbitrator, by consensus. We are voting for the members by consensus. We have a safety valve it is called elections. - π 01:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Once elected

Do we get a badge? A uniform? Henchmen? A secret base in the mountains? A Persian cat? These questions should not hang in the air. Great things are afoot! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There will definitely be a nice badge, unless I get bored. I'm good at making badges. ħuman 12:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't felt this excited since Obama got elected. CHANGE!! SJ ^Debaser 12:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if you are excited about being the Dennis Kucinich to Obama's, well, Obama (i.e. trailing in the polls so badly). Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 01:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And that other thing! ħuman 12:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a fluffy white cat is mandatory. I can lend you Cleo for a bit if you like. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No secret mountain base is complete without a monorail either, but perhaps we could combine these essential tools of leadership[2] -- 17:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You can haz monorail kitty, best can do. U must wears jockstrap on head with logo facing forward. Dat b badge... best can do .. tight budget for LJ equipage..U haz owns jocks ?

Anything else?

It looks their role is pretty well and strictly defined, with the time limit and their departure from office pretty assured. I would suggest we leave any littler details up to the LJ themselves and see how it works for the first run - they will probably be able to suggest some changes when they're done.

Does anyone else have anything they think is particularly important to add or subtract, or can we call this one finished policy?--^talk 17:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The "assess hidden edits" bit - I can't find where there this was suggested & agreed on, if indeed it was. Is the message that only the Loya Jirga can undo deleted revisions? 'Cause I think this might cause problems, unless we restrict revision-delete to bureaucrats only or something. As it is, we sometimes get new sysops using it frivolously, which is easy enough to undo, but going through a full Loya Jirga hearing about it is going to be a tedious waste of time. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The "assess hidden edits" bit was my idea - nobody's discussed it really. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can hide edits from sysops. Hey, here's a good idea, why don't we just make bureaucrats the Loya Jirga? Like every other wiki does? -- Nx / talk 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I suggested. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That'd just move the HCM up one layer. There's too many (47) 'crats to cope really. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That problem can be solved. -- Nx / talk 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't rock the boat. We've talked it out at length, haven't we? The only resolution would be to "elect" 'crats - = LJ ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So what, you want me to create an extra user group? What extra rights would it have? What extra rights can it have, since crats already have everything? Should the ability to hide revisions from sysops, for example, be removed from crats and given to the LJ? Or will using the ability simply be verboten for non-LJ crats? Who would be able to give which userrights? Etc. -- Nx / talk 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there's any need for a UserGroup. Thee LJ is only for resolving disputes as I understand it. ,^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ECxbloody 2)But most, if not all, other wikis work on the assumption that there are some people, typically the site owners or founders, who have theoretically absolute power: the Wikimedia Foundation for Wikipedia, Andy for Conservapedia, Hans Johnson on RWW etc. We, on the other hand, are run by the community, not Trent or Human. Moreover, things like freely giving out user rights are so deeply entrenched into the community that changing them significantly would be very difficult. Educated harmonic Hoover! 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ECs, reply to Toast's "only resolution" comment) Not really. Did you read my suggestion, linked above? Having LJ as a rotational position among our existing pool of bureaucrats would, I think, be preferable to electing a higher subset of users. But the proposal got lost in the stampede to rush on with elections. So I don't really agree with "we've talked it out at length" - there's been far too much haste to enforce one version of the Loya Jirga idea, without looking at other alternatives. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't like the "higher" in there, Stoateloid. How about we see how it goes & change if/as necessary? Nothing's carved in stone. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We've hashed out this system at great discussion and pains, so let's at least try it this way. Let's just protect LJ pages, so only crats can edit it - and crats can understand the rules well enough not to do so unless they're LJ.--^talk 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Have we agreed on whether LimpJunkets can serve consecutive terms, and if so, how many? I think it would be good if they can, since there's no point in kicking out someone who's doing a good job, at least not after 3 months. And I don't think we really need any limit on how long they can serve, after all, they still have to get re-elected to stay in, right? ħuman 23:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem with term limits is that we will lose good Jirgers, bad one should get voted out. - π 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"then the whole lot is replaced." does that mean no one gets to be re-elected after a no confidence spill? Maybe we should be a little less frivolous with the language on this page. - π 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be allowed to be replaced and serve as many terms as they want. It's the mob who's the ultimate authority on whether they should be allowed to stay, and I see little danger in consecutive terms if some people prove especially even-tempered and quiet about their role, like an LJ should be.--^talk 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can Loosely Jaundiced members themselves bring issues before the Limp Jewels? ħuman 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not: they're members. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Toast, I don't see why not.--^talk 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sysop status

I was under the impression that being elected a sysop on this wiki did not confer any special status. However, the requirement that Loya Jirga candidates be Bureaucrats seems to contradict this. I wonder, are our expectations of sysops and Bureaucrats changing? Forgive me if I have misunderstood. There are so many new things here to keep track of. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't quite see your point DMG, The LJ is purely a dispute resolving body. Members are crats because they're, by & large, very well established, trusted editors. Sysops are perhaps not so well established but still, by & large, trusted. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely if they are expected to resolve disputes, this implies a greater level of authority? I'm not sure I have a point, exactly; I am just expressing confusion, for the most part. Your social structure seems to have become extremely convoluted. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The LJ group is there for a specific purpose. They can't go around waving badges and demanding free doughnuts. The social structure is just a bit unclear and murky, since there's no rigid hierarchy. Certainly there is a hierarchy, but people have to make their own badges, and then everyone else is free to ignore them. --Thor's Mighty Phallus (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well put TMP, It's still a mobocracy. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting limitless authority. I was suggesting that these plans for the Loya Jirga group imply the existence of unique abilities reserved for an elect group. Is that a contentious suggestion? Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately the Laconic Joyous will only be advisory. They will have no powers other than expressing what they see to be the will of the mob. They will be subject to recall at the whim of the mob. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but I cannot see what the point of such a system would be. Your Loya Jirga would, almost by definition, have no effect on the community. What is it for? Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Their advice should^[sic] be taken as rulings when applied to potential HCM. Given the goodwill of the mob, this will work. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement is not necessarily based in ill will. For example, how would the Loya Jirga have resolved the recent conflicts instigated by User:Marcus Cicero? Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No Idea! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are endearingly honest. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

MC would have been vandal binned but instead of the community paroling him, binning him, banning him, paroling him, everyone yelling at each other about what to do the LJ would just make sure he stayed in the bin to start with. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what I expected. But I think that would have been impossible if the Loya Jirga had only been empowered to give advice to the mob. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the mob has agreed to take the advice of the LJ. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The mob is in a continuous state of change. For example, I have made no such agreement. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And .... ? ^{— Unsigned, by: Toast / talk / contribs}

The mob cannot make an "agreement", by any meaningful use of the term. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your agreement is irrelevant. Nobody will be interfering with the actions of the Loyal Jincup. I'll help you understand that if you need it. 22:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted me. I am not trying to be confrontational. I am only pointing out that you cannot rely on agreement across the whole community. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Realistically everyone is free to decide as they wish. There's no formal agreement here, but we have a record here of a long and well-intentioned discussion. Anyone choosing to go against the LJ would require a decent reason, and I'd imagine the general response to them would be negative if that reason is asinine. There is goodwill here, and the intention to avoid the situations that were causing people to drift away. The event of the past week would seem to be evidence of a renewed interest. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To me this sounds like people are already planning on ignoring the decisions of Loya Jirga if they disagree with them. If that happens I am probably going to leave or serious curtail any involvement with the supposedly rational site. We can't continue to go on with the constant fighting that is occurring, but some people seem to want to perpetuate it in the name of being "right" or "lulz", than I will leave you to it. - π 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the LJ impose sanctions on those who ignore their decisions? -- Nx / talk 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It won't be the LJ who impose sanctions, but the mobocracy.

Here is how I see it: the mobocracy has recognized that its structure is inefficient in dealing with a few issues. This includes how to deal with trolls and a few other select disputes that escalate. The mobocracy accordingly is now implementing a system to deal with this, and is voluntarily agreeing to obey the people it puts in power under the set terms of their power. And just like how one member of the mob isn't allowed to defy consensus on page deletes or the like, similarly no one can defy consensus on a troll's binning after the LJ decide something. But in keeping with our ideals, the LJ must be entirely transparent, will always be subject to free questioning of their actions (even if no one can actually directly do anything contrary to their rulings), and will be limited in power and scope. We have explicitly established that theirs is a janitorial role. 'Crats and sysops have differing powers, too, but I never felt that I went unheard when I was a sysop. I don't think it mattered at all. Similarly, being an LJ should communicate no status or greater voice in any dispute but that we have delegated to them. If an LJ starts abusing that, they will be removed by the mob.--^talk 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think AD pretty much nailed it there. ħuman 07:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AD, your statement confuses me. How exactly do you think a large group of people with no real commonality can "voluntarily agree" to anything? Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus and voting. It's how the mob works out most problems. By and large, we make differing arguments and see where most people stand. If it seems like there's little disagreement after discussion, we do what the consensus thinks is right. If there's significant disagreement, we hold votes to be fair.--^talk 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MC

Can the LJ just go ahead and decide on MC's fate? Educated harmonic Hoover! 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As an LJ member I think he should stay where he is. In the bin. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

EC) Has anyone suggested his present circumstances be changed? There doesn't appear to be a dispute, so no place for the LJ to intervene. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@Ace - He isn't in the bin. He's in the ban and revert. All implemented by the mob with no need for LJ help. -- =w= 21:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then, he can stay there. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MC, TK, Fall Down, and so forth, I really don't see the appeal in poking folks who we know are unpleasant to deal with, especially if they're not currently doing anything. Whatever his status, don't mess with it. --Kels (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WIGO:CP is on my shitlist (thanks, PI) so I haven't seen him around--what is TK's status these days? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Finalising this (your thoughts?)

The role looks pretty much ready, but I can think of a couple of things to add. I think the LJ should only act with a majority agreement within the LJ (i.e. four out of three), and then LJ accepts the majority decision. If an individual can just ride in and make a decision then we risk the LJ becoming a smaller version of HCM. The general consensus seems to be that the LJ isn't to be some kind of government, and should not become involved in site policy unless called to make a decision in the event of the mob being unable to reach a decision. I think we could use a section on enforcement. The LJ itself can't physically do anything more than anyone else with similar wiki powers, but it should be accepted that anything that has reached the level of the LJ is likely heated enough that if their decision is not accepted its likely to lead to some pretty heavy HCM.We also need to explain how to call the LJ in, which would likely be by creating a new section in RationalWiki: Loya Jirga for new requests. I suggest as well a time limit for reaching a decision, so things don't drag on. Perhaps seven days? People in the LJ should have the page observed so they know that something is going on and can join the discussion. Once we have this decided this text should be put in to (or linked from) RationalWiki:Community Standards. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A decision that's a four-three split within the LJ is not a compelling decision. That's why I think the argument that the LJ should be an odd number of individuals just to deliver majority verdicts is a very flawed one. If an issue is contentious enough to split the LJ pretty much fifty-fifty, then that's likely to be a reflection on the wider RW community. The issue should be talked out to find a compromise position or an option that a more satisfactory section of the community can be happy with, rather than seeking a slim majority to avoid that eventuality & just go with a nominal majority decision for convenience. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So maybe it should require 5 LJs to take effect? I think in operation you'll find us (well, us while I is one, but you know what I mean) tending to do what we did the one time we were called - we discuss a bit, make sure we've all chimed in, someone phrases a fairly good synopsis and four or five others vote "yea". The last one had no "nay" votes, so it was 5-0-0. ħuman 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Also I think that "calling the LJ" should also involve mentions on each of their talk pages, if they aren't obviously aware of the current imbroglio. So, the process would be: present the issue clearly, list the LJ members for clarity, intercom or talk page them, then answer any questions they have about the issue on the talk page. Pretty much like we did that one time. ħuman 01:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Against trolls

“”Take appropriate action against trolls. This includes binning, unbinning, and (if necessary) blocking.

Is this really necessary anymore? From the recent Chicken Coop case with UncleHo, it seems like this is a power that could/should devolve. Blue (pester) 22:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Should maybe read "Take appropriate action against trolls when the community is unable to reach consensus on the issue." P-Foster (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What Foster said. Ace McAwesome 22:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That should be added to each of the LJ's "powers." Blue (pester) 22:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, damn.

This is much better than the moderator description page. Change 3 months to 6 months and some of the language, and we could have an actually effective moderator policy here. Blue (is useful) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)