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 ^{What the ...} 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)

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. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:30, 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 ^{What the ...} 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. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{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)

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)

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)