Forum:Loya Jirga

< Index | Site-related discussion

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 :) ^{— 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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:

1. 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.
2. 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. ħuman 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. ħuman 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? ħuman 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. ħuman 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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 Presidente^TM. 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 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. ħuman 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:

• 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?

TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 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. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 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. - π 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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). -- 18:51, 31 January 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

• ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} Evenings (GMT), intermittent daytime editing at weekends. 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} Any time. 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC) GMT. On and off most days of the week, day and night. The benefits of a strange job.
• Wisest drug Hoover! 14:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Evenings and some afternoons.
• SJ ^Debaser - 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. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 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)
• Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 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.
• --User:Theautocrat/Sig 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Mainly at 6-10 CST. I work Saturdays, though.
• ħuman 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.

Insomniacs

• Basically if you have gaps anywhere in 24hrs, I can fill them. Intermittent. -- =w= 18:18, 31 January 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? ħuman 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. - π 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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 :( ħuman 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? - π 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. ħuman 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? ħuman 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? ħuman 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. ħuman 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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??? ħuman 06:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nx said here not to use it. I think he said why as well, but I forget where. ListenerX^TalkerX 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? ħuman 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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 ;) ħuman 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)

1. Human- you print out RW pages to read them?
2. 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. ħuman 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.--^{Ask me about your mother} 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" [1]

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^{RW 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. ħuman 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. - π 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. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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)^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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.-- 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. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 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 barfbag 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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. --^{Ask me about your mother} 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. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire 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. Wisest drug Hoover! 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? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 23:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga

Reading some of the comments here and trying to think of a way forward I would suggest.

• The creation of a Loya Jirga which will decide on banning people who seem to be particularly disruptive.
• This group of people will be elected for a term of six months.
• In order to facilitate decision-making there should be no more than seven members and the block vote should be by simple majority.
• Their deliberations will not be held in public on the wiki as the objective is remove HCM.
• Three months after their deliberations have finalized they will be published in full so that the site can know how decisions were reached along with the positions held by the various members.
• If somebody is perma-banned or binned then a clear reason will be given.
• If a perma-ban/bin is being discussed this information will be made available to the wiki.
• The user involved may make a submission to the Loya Jirga is they so wish.
• Such bans or blocks should be seen as very much the exception.
• There will be no appeal.
• The blocks will also apply to any user which the Loya Jirga has sufficient reason to believe is a sock of a banned user.

I should point out that this is very much a "second best" option as the best solution would be not to feed or otherwise encourage trolls - and this would be my preferred solution. However, as we as a group seem to be incapable of then then a more legalistic approach seems to be called for. I shall now return to lurking.--Bob^{It's cold!} 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so fond of the secret discussions part, although if there were some way to limit it to solely one page that would be better. Part of HCM is the fact that things spread over half the wiki, to talk pages and Saloon Bar and so on. Just look at Earthland trying to pull his dispute with Irrational Atheist over here, that's the sort of thing we as a group want to discourage. Trolls, of course, encourage that. --Kels (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The secret discussions sort of make sense, and we could just designate a page on the wiki for it. I think 3 months is way too long, though; a couple of weeks should do. Wisest drug Hoover! 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Confidential (better word) discussions opened to the wiki as soon as the action has been taken surely. Why wait? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Toast. I'd just put them out once the decision has been made. Silence invites speculation. Bob, you're right that these discussions shouldn't just happen in a page that everyone can toss their 2 cents in to. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to make a page that is visible, but can only be edited by folks in a certain group? You could probably leave the talk page for the peanut gallery, since people are gonna want to comment on some things and it's better than hiving it off to user talk pages. --Kels (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Term limits are silly and unnecessary. Just let the members leave whenever they want to, and elect people to fill the gaps. If the mob feels that particular members are too harsh/lenient, then we have a vote. A short delay between releasing the discussion might be preferable. Also, membership should be limited to experienced editors. Broccoli (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

EC: The reason for the delay is to allow opinions to cool. The immediate release might simply kick start another round of debate. Hopefully by three months people will have lost interest and it will only be a boring historic record. What I'm trying to avoid is everybody and his sock kicking in.--Bob^{It's cold!} 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe three months is a bit long. Stuff usually cools down here quite quickly. Let the Loya Jirga decide when to release. And they should all be 'crats. Broccoli (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Term limits are necessary because people tend to stay with things the way they are, unless there will be a vote anyway. Wisest drug Hoover! 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I see your point. I do think though that 3 months is too long. Maybe a week or two? My worry is that speculation fills the void left by an absence of facts. Yup, some kind of rotation makes sense, if only to prevent cliques from forming. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think that the mob would be capable of regulating the Loya Jirga? I'm fairly sure that any complaints about power abuse or clique formation would be raised quite quickly. Broccoli (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I really think you are overthinking this. Let anyone vandal bin , a quorum of Crats to ban or debin, reason on a locked page - discussion by sysops or lower irrelevant. This should be an extremely rare occurance. Crats to determine handling of socks. I didnt think you were talking far reaching powers , just the minimum to avoid fights over binning/banning troublesome users Hamster (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that only 'crats (or the elected team for the month) should handle debinning and with damn good cause. Also, I am very anti the idea of secret discussions!. One page should be viable for openness and the talk page be used for suggestions by the group. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that would just lead to the same HCM, because bickering would occur on the talk page. However, we could try it, and only switch if it doesn't work. Broccoli (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Objective opinion from a long time lurker Trolling

Some content moved to Forum:Loya Jirga/Trolling.

Rationalwiki is an anarchy (whatever other word you may invent to make it seem otherwise), and although the anarchy may work fine for a year or two, it will never work out for the rest of eternity. Tens of thousands of words have been written here because members of RW have finally begun to understand this and try to bring some order into anarchy.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with such oversimplification? --Earthland (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sounds about right to me. Simplified, as you said, but not fundamentally wrong. Essentially I agree with Michael, we do need to have some level that acts like a conventional website so everyone else can be free to carry on enjoying themselves. Because otherwise, very few people end up enjoying themselves and you have a wiki that bleeds members. --Kels (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

HCM avoidance & checkuser

So far we've concentrated on troll-induced HCMs, and they have indeed dominated lately. But what about HCMs caused by legitimate users disagreeing, like the messagebox dispute? I assume the Loya Jirga would intervene then, so what actions should be taken? Preventing trolls is only part of conflict resolution. Wisest drug Hoover! 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Easier if the Loya Jirga decides when to intervene and what to do, rather than making up a load of rules that will end up having to be reviewed. I maintain that if the Loya Jirga group gets out of hand, the mob will dispose of it and put up a new one. Broccoli (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good system; I still think re-elections will be necessary, but we should have the ability to call an election at an arbitrary time if the Loya Jirga gets out of hand (yes, I'm going to put it in italics. It looks better that way). Wisest drug Hoover! 19:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rules shouldn't expand. We already have decent guidelines for behaviour. We need to understand the intent of them, and that can be applied to unexpected situations. This kind of thing can be summed up in a few sentences. Yup, the Loya Jirga thing has to be serving a purpose or it should be disposed of. Mind you, if we get to that level then something pretty serious is probably happening on the site, and I suggest there won't be many people left around by that time. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just let me run the wiki. It might end up resembling a fascist dictatorship, but shit will get done damnit! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But the trains! Will the trains run on time? --Kels (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No. They will run on thyme. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the LJ should focus primarily on trolling and vandalism, if only because at the moment that is the more serious issue, though I think they should have discretionary powers in this regard. One thing regards trolling/vandalism that hasn't been addressed is that this will mean we have to bite the bullet and get over using checkuser, as it's going to be frustrating and pointless for the LJ to operate with it being a constant hot button issue. Regarding existing users causing HCM, I think perhaps giving the LJ the right to lock a page for a short time that is heading towards the mudpit, long neough to force people to step back from the keyboard for a bit. They should only really look at blocking any individual editors if they carry the conlfict across to other pages. -- 19:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For checkuser, couldn't we simply change the software so that it only reports accounts from the same IP, without displaying the IP? It would remove most privacy concerns. Wisest drug Hoover! 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't do any checkusering. To put it another way: no way am I installing that extension. -- Nx / talk 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - we don't need checkuser. If the same troll comes back we just bin/ban again. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, binning works on all accounts from that IP, so checkuser is unnecessary. Wisest drug Hoover! 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that. If this is the case, I guess its not so much of an issue. Just wanted to draw attention to the matter though. -- 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can't tell user:foobar is a troll's sock, then user:foobar is not a problem - until demonstrated otherwise. We can spot the mini-marcuses all right, so we don't need checkuser. what I mean is, troll socks reveal themselves and can be dealt with as and when. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So much pastry.

For such a little pie. Y'know, if things don't work out, you can always go back to the way they were. Suck it and see. The worst that would happen is a couple of people get hacked off. The planet will still survive. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we ready to go with the Loya Jirga and see what happens, then? Broccoli (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's getting there, isn't it? the only dissenting voices are those wanting to stick with the current system, which isn't really working. Someone want to start a RationalWiki:Elections to the Loya Jirga page? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I want my promotion dammmit. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to get it the hard way like I did - bribing TOP and Edgerunner with free beer. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Anagram

Joy, a Grail! Totnesmartin (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gay or jail! ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Joyaa girl! Totnesmartin (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

KNEEL BEFORE THE LOYA JIRGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should now be one of the reason choices in drop down menu when banning. I like it :) -- 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I can back this. (The rest I feel is important, but I can't care enough to really put forward any suggestions.) Researcher (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to do that, but i couldn't be arsed and bought a spiderman book on amazon instead. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, isn't it a bit derivative of the much superior KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!! --Kels (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, Kneel before Zod came after the far superior Kneel before the might of Sutekh! Totnesmartin (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Etc's opinion

As this page seems quite unorganized, I'm adding a new section merely to state my own opinion.

Any small enough community can be run as an anarchy. The fact that that wonderful "system" no longer works here is just a sign that RW is growing. That is good.

The solution is boring, soulless but simple and necessary:

1. Establish rules
2. Appoint regular users to administrator, only if they show good behavior and responsibility
3. Ban disruptive users, only for legitimate reasons (breaking aforementioned rules)

It's a good thing. It doesn't mean that it will become boring. Etc 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That is basically it in a nutshell. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This site is growing rapidly! Totnesmartin (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE

I recall graphs on the blog showing that most Rats edit during working hours in the week. Can we hold off further discussion until say Wednesday? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If we stop now, nothing will get done. Voting probably won't be over for about a week anyway. Plently of time for everyone to chime in. Broccoli (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just don't want it to appear like a fait accompli when all t'others log on. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Carpe diem! The righteous cause of the Loya Jirga cannot be halted! Broccoli (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all still vague - despite the new election and role pages, it still might not happen, although I hope it does. Anyway, agree with the cooked slice of bread that this should be in the air all week. There's an intercom about it already so people will know when they turn up for workRWing tomorrow. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually losing my internet for a few days. I soon will no longer be a casualty of dial-up!--Thanatos (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with decision making here is that it is often rushed and people who are away for a few days are left out. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

true, which is why we're holding off for a while so everyone can have a say, this is too big for a fait accompli. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

Do we have to stick with Loya Jirga? There are millions of other & probably better things we could call it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the WP:Loya Jirga is a vaguely-defined group who decide matters of weight in one of world's most badly run countries, I think it's perfectly fitting. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Totnesmartin, very appropiate... All members elected to the Loya Jirga will be required to fire an AK-47 into the air to celebrate the momentous occasion. -- 23:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And we can have a game of Buzkashi. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have access to an AK-47, so if I shoot it into the air, I have to explain why to my neighbors. They'll never understand. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just thought Latoya Jackson ? what ? and moved on ... Hamster (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Although it was amusing name for this forum, I think LJ is an awful name for the "group" if we proceed with this. Since most of the wiki's business is conducted in some form of English, why not come up with an English name, or at least a more familiar word (Taliban? The Panel? The Committee?). It should at least be moderately self-explanatory, IMO. ħuman 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin Death Panel..? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cabal. -- Captain Obvious 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopeless

One of the main reasons I avoided posting on RW for so long (while reading it) and now have all but left is that there is absolutely no structure at all. I have been subject to blocks of aggression, hate language and (most frustrating) people just stop responding to what I have to say. While, yes, I have stepped over lines here, there aren't lines and there are basically no rules at all other than the whim of bureaucrats that can, at best, be called jackasses. Some pages get deleted, while many who don't fit a supposed "mission statement" get to stay. I don't like Mexican standoffs, and this site is nothing but a giant one. Someone take the damn lead and put your ginormous ego's down, or fire the first shot so everyone goes down. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally agreed, and this proposed Star Chamber will do nothing to solve it, given that several of the users who cause most of the problems have put themselves forward for election detailed their availability. Unless the ability to cause trouble is removed from the people who cause it, trouble will continue to be caused. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Man, I love your winning attitude. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already proposed a solution above. I respectfully suggest you read it before commenting again. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, another proponent of the 'normal wiki' solution! Treason! This Loya Jirga isn't going to be ruling the wiki, just squashing trolls and HCMs before they annoy people. I don't deny that as the wiki grows, more committees or a more usual power structure might be needed, but I don't think we need them now. Broccoli (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what sysops and bureaucrats do on normal wikis. Please, can somebody explain to me why people need the ability to engage in idiotic block wars to prove that they're rational? I have never seen a reason for the indiscriminate sysopping of users except that it might be some vague gesture at CP. Is this rational in any sense of the word? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It means that power is diffuse, and roughly equal between most users. It prevents a user rights hierarchy. It allows a samll wiki to effectivly deal with vandalism. Broccoli (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No... it doesn't. You're talking about adding an extra layer to an already malfunctioning system. Call me cynical, call me pessimistic, but it won't work. What will it be next? A three-person committee to oversee the seven-person committee with an oh-so-clever name? Just use the software as it was supposed to be used. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it won't work? The point of it is to maintain the usual atmosphere of mobocracy, while stopping HCMs. Excuse me if I don't see the doom of RationalWiki approaching because this place isn't run like an internet forum or Wikipedia. Broccoli (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With slightly less venom, I'd like to suggest to you that your solution would be the solution if the problems on the site were caused by the large number of casual editors. The core editors could be given rights, and they would prevent disagreements between the peons spilling. However, most HCMs seem to involve bickering between the core editors. So give them a place to bicker without casuing HCM. Broccoli (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing really amazes me. "Hey, we have a problem that the site comes to a standstill because people argue all the time. Let's get together and argue about what to do about this. Of course we'll never agree on what to do...we never do." Really, you all have outdone yourselves with this one. Congratulations. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And you've been such a help in getting us to a different resolution. Well done! --Kels (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As a non-bureaucrat, that is not my job. I'm not going to attempt to act in the capacity of a bureaucrat here for several reasons. Mostly, it's Too much watching people with no solutions bitch an moan back and forth at each other. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

The best way to stop bitching and moaning is not to do it yourself. - π 04:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow...bureaucrats really are shameless. I digress. Best of luck to you all, you're going to need it! δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

dude, just give it a rest already. Thanks for your best wishes, let us get down to business without your sideshow. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)You are usually unpleasant without the benefit of any insight, cgb. It is unfortunate.--^(talk) 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall delete all my non-insight then. You do not have my permission to use it in any capacity. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You CC by SAd all your non-insights when you clicked "save". We own you now. ħuman 04:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs his binky! Yes he does bloo bloo bloo who's sooooo big? You are!--^(talk) 04:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about this until the site-wide header

But thanks for alerting me so I can continue to ignore it! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

constitutional proposal

I think one "body" is insufficient, and we should follow the Christian model provided to the world by the USA and develop a tripartite form of government. In a nutshell:

• A legislative body. This group would essentially be in charge of drafting proposals. Mob approval would still be required for any changes.
• An executive body. This group would be responsible for enforcing whatever rules we have by putting together charges and evidence and bringing them before the...
• Judiciary. The judicial group would respond to any charges brought by the cops and determine and enforce any sanctions required.

All three should have some form of power over the other two, impeachment-type powers. All group members would be rotated (or not) at varying intervals. No one can be in more than one group. All other editors are always free/encouraged to commentate on the deliberations of the three groups on talk pages. I would suggest roughly 11-13 or so legislators, 7-11 or so cops, and probably 7 Meters of Justice.

This splits up the authority and avoids the Star Chamber effect I see being developed above.

I would like to warn our descendants of the corrupting influence of factions, by the way. ħuman 02:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to commentate on this and say that I oppose any form of control that is more complicated than that which it controls. I think we should have a Humanocracy instead.--^(talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuck no Tom AD, we can't have this giant mutant bat in charge. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Heresies will not be permitted under His benevolent reign, thou varlet.--^(talk) 02:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That would require 31 people. Do we even have that many editors any more? They seem to be dropping like flies. - π 02:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I want health care! And doing away with ebil terrorists! Where do I sign up? Šţěŗĭļė barfbag 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The constitution guarantees freedom and health care is a form of government tyranny. Also the constitution specifically says the country must be capitalist and health care is socialism. Also it says Jesus at least 6 times. - π 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus also says health care is socialism. And he said it in Conservative English, bitch! --Kels (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn. Šţěŗĭļė barfbag 03:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I was serious... bodies could be smaller... yellow dresses for everyone, and a pretty red hat for RobS! ħuman 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Godlike Rulership

Since no decision has yet been implemented , that I can see, its obvious that a Godlike Authority is required to cut through and get things done , hopefully in less than 6 days. I therefore require you to all bow down before me and make me the Samurai Pizza Crat. (uh oh). I promise to rule fairly and impartially all the unknown peons of the site , and give my good buddies special treatment, just exactly as it should be . Thanks for listening, I will now go far away .. Hamster (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can clearly see Theemperor has no clothes.

No, I $\pi$ shall be your Reptilian Overlord. - π 04:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I will be the perfect Emperor Cleon III. Bow before me! --User:Theautocrat/Sig 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were God, I'd make a few changes. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? I am curious... ħuman 04:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No you're not. Go fuck yourself. 04:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

God's too patient and merciful. I wouldn't wait til they die to send some sinners to hell, I' d send some there while thier still living. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You and your Schlafly should continue rewriting the bibble to emphasize hell on earth more then, Rob. 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.: Isaiah 30:22 KJV RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that Repltile Overlord pic looks just a little Gay ! 8) Hamster (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Frot.jpg^{Warning: NSFW Image!} It's not any gayer than this one. 04:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob, are you saying that God is not perfect? Blasphemy!--Thanatos (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob, if you were god, would all ladies wear yellow? Aceⁱ⁹ 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Would all ladies wear yellow? Only if they had telecasters as well.

Are you sure that's a telecaster? The controls look wrong to me... ħuman 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rotational Loya Jirga proposal

We already have a group of bureaucrats who are given extra responsibilities beyond sysops, & who are now chosen by election. + The list of Loya Jirga nominees looks a lot like a list of our active bureaucrats. So having a separate subgroup seems unnecessary, overly hierarchical, & may cause resentment for those not chosen. It will be better to have a Loya Jirga rotation, with each crat taking turns. This would also keep the system relatively mobocratic: it will be less like a council of elders & more like jury duty. Something like this:

• Every bureaucrat is on the Loya Jirga rota for one month at a time, every few months (depending on the number of crats).
• Inactive bureaucrats are decratted, with a note on their talk page explaining the reason. They can be given their cratship back if they become active again.
• We set up a page with some code in it that will display the names of seven bureaucrats (the Loya Jirga), plus two or three more as substitutes if required, and will change the names every month, going through the full list of crats in a repeating pattern. (Perhaps we can change the order that it chooses names periodically, so that it's not always the same combinations of users).
• Any bureaucrat can call the Loya Jirga when they think it is necessary. S/he posts a comment on the Loya Jirga page outlining why the Loya Jirga in required.
• S/he checks the current Loya Jirga list, and contacts all current LJ members with a comment on their talk page to alert them to the LJ meeting.
• If s/he is not on the LJ list him/herself, s/he take no further part in the discussion (unless the LJ request further comment or explanation from him/her).
• If any crat on the LJ rota is unavailable, or doesn't wish to be involved, they can nominate another crat to serve instead, or one of the substitutes can be used.
• The LJ remains in session with the same members until a decision is reached. Their discussion about the case is on the Loya Jirga page only.
• Other users may not comment on the LJ page, but may comment on its talk page. They should only contact LJ members directly about the case if they have information (not just an opinion) which could affect the decision.

What do you reckon? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I like that but a couple of things - the L.J should never be used for trivial matters. It aint a police force it is an HCM moderator.

Any L.J member outside L.J business is a mere editor as everyone else.

Aceⁱ⁹ 09:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Lets move on this before we get fragmented. I think its important. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I plead for simples. Too many rules. If the problem is people abusing sysopship, then either a. take it away from them or b. stop handing it out like candy. Rotation / election / hypnosis as a method of pro-actively preventing good apples rotting just serves to make the whole thing more complicated and less workable.

On another note, while there is a decent pool of people at the moment (toys being thrown out of the pram aside, c.f. Nx), how do people get in that pool? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with simples is that it isn't really workable any more: things need to be agreed & resolved, which is what this is all about. E.g. your solutions a & b above aren't really as simple as they sound: we would need clearer criteria for sysopship if we were going to restrict it or deny it to some users. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the LJ; I'm arguing against the musical chairs and policies'n'procedures. Why take a subset of some of the rats? Are they going to pay more attention for that month when they're on duty? I just don't see the point. Post questions to LJ page, crats come to consensus, decision is pooped out. That's simples. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Ace on this one. Good proposal, now let's try and not kill it in committee. --PsygremlinTala! 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of rotation is a) to keep the number down to 7 (or whatever it ends up as) and b) stopping it being the same people all the time. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's just go

We'll just descend into navel-gazing if we keep up the discussion. Let's put the proposal into effect. Wisest drug Hoover! 19:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Put something into effect, tweak it as it goes. Voting for LJ members next? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Wisest drug Hoover! 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Execute. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Megathrusters are go. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest +ve votes only to avoid recriminations? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Phantom Hoover has started the vote. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)