RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive12

Please remember to keep RationalWiki:Moderators in mind when making serious proposals as to what you want to do as a Mod. Please sign your posts as normal. This is a discussion space! You can check the archives for what crazy shit people said in previous years.

Spud
Hello folks!

Once again, I am delighted to be running in the moderator election. It's been my pleasure and my privilege to be a moderator since June 2018 and to be a member of the Board of Trustees since September 2017. You saw fit to reelect me to the Board of Trustees in August. I'm hoping that you'll see fit to reelect me as a moderator now.

I'm well aware that there are still a few members of the genuine Old Guard here who've been on RationalWiki much longer than I have. But I don't think anyone can doubt I've shown my commitment to this place. I've been a registered user here since 13 September 2011. And if I haven't made at least one edit here every single day since then, I've come pretty damn close. I wholeheartedly support RationalWiki's mission to the fullest possible extent and I am very pleased with the direction in which this site is going. My experience here has been a very positive one on the whole and remarkably free of drama. Apart from the usual trolls, I don't seem to have rubbed anybody here up the wrong way too much. In fact, I would like to thank the community here for being there to give me support when I most needed it. RationalWiki has been very good to me and I've always done my best to be good to it too.

if I am reelected, I promise to translate into French and Spanish some of the articles that I've already translated into Esperanto. I'll probably translate a few more articles into Esperanto too. As far as technology and circumstances will allow, I will check on this site at least once a day. I will weigh in on the issues here and try to resolve them to the benefit of the community. I will do my best to help out clueless noobs who are trying to make this site better, or who at least don't mean any harm. I will also show those who are just here to cause trouble the door without making too much fuss about it.

And if I'm not reelected. I'll do all that anyway. Spud (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

RWRW
During last year’s Mod election, I made a series of pledges. These included:
 * Remain active.
 * Oppose ideological sanctions.
 * Remain neutral and be level-headed in any disputes.
 * Only using the ModHat when necessary.
 * (I also ran on an anti-establishment platform last time around but I guess that can’t be used this year).

To the best of my knowledge I have stayed true to these principles, and will continue to do so if I am elected for second term. --RWRW (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena
I am the People's Candidate. Vote for me and nuisance trolls and dipshit Nazis will no longer be tolerated on this platform. That is all. — Oxyaena Harass  13:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Elect me and I shall follow the system of doing as little as needed. 14:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ariel31459
Here is a list of practices I would employ in the event I am elected.


 * To look in on the site at least once every day (if possible) for the duration of the term.
 * To quickly answer any messages sent to my email box.
 * to abstain from acting in conflicts arising with respect to articles I have written or contextually edited.
 * to encourage new users when they appear to be sincere, unless they are Nazis, etc.
 * to answer all user questions, e.g.,Q:"Do you believe in God?" Ans.:No.
 * to harass only other moderators, just to keep them on their toes.

The above is not a complete list. Addendum: I have decided to apply all of the above practices in any event.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If anyone would care to ask me questions, please come to my talk page for a detailed discussion.

/Bicyclewheel/637 other accounts that I've forgotten the passwords to
Former Mod, Crat and Loya Jirgaite. Been around since 2007, and though not so active now, I do tend to be on site during the late mornings (UTC) when nobody else is - so that time slot would be covered. It's good to have mod coverage as close to 24/7 as we can manage. If elected I'll be in every morning I can. Also, elect me mod and i'll buy you an organic drink next time you're in Totnes.


 * I've long bitched and moaned that we're too tolerant of trolls here. I will kick troll arse.
 * Nazis can piss off too.
 * Restore our beloved goat to her rightful position!
 * Bore people silly about what RW was like in the old days!

I am one of the old guard having been part of RW for 12 years. As such I have been instrumental in defining the community standards, I was elected to the Loya Jirga and eventually became one of the first moderators - voted in twice before I volunteered to step down after I ran amok one day. I developed, with several others, the rules in which moderators work by so I am the only person here who not only predates the role of mod but actually developed the role itself. I know this site inside and out and maintain contact with our great and wise benefactor, the one and only god of RW - User:Tmtoulouse (admittedly he has long since given up the reigns and I haven't heard from him in some time. I maintain personal contact with a lawyer who helped set up the RW Foundation as well and as many other founders of RW so I am uniquely positioned to be a mod. As a mod I'll: And the biggie, As stated I know this site inside and out having help build the fucking thing so yeah, experience and forthrightness combined with a willingness to listen, particularity listening to complaints of mod abuse. May the seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman, Acei9 20:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the block log and vandal log everyday to review bans
 * Moderate with a light touch
 * Maintain the community standards
 * Listen to any complaint and advise accordingly
 * Only moderate when called on to moderate, otherwise I'm just another scumbag
 * Keep the other mods in check (those who may not understand what being a mod entails)

I have been moderator since 2017 and an editor since 2014. I am also one of the most active contributors (currently #1 for mainspace edits with 20,516 edits). I have created more than 40 mainspace pages, and I have been involved in revising several articles to gold standard.

I have striven to keep my mod-hat off as much as possible while at the same time endeavoring to contribute to all significant coop cases and issues brought before the moderators. I believe that making a substantial number of mainspace edits is an advantage for a moderator because it shows that one has at least passing knowledge of most areas covered by RW should a dispute arise involving specific topics. Bongolian (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the purposes of RationalWiki, and I support following the stated policies of RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Plumbers for power!

This is an incumbent here. I'm happy to be running as mod again. The last two years being one has been a good experience for me. I'm also hard at work improving the wiki like I usually do! I try to balance mainspace edits with chatting and content disputes just to show some commitment to RationalWiki's goals and give RationalWiki a reason people cite it or visit it. I have remembered someone bringing it up that major edits to mainspace should be more frequent but I've been trying to pull my weight as well as several other fellow mods like Bongolian. I might hold some strong stances in ideological alignment but I try my best to be fair and respectful even if the job is frustrating sometimes. Anyway, who doesn't want skeptical cartoon plumber men as mods? It might invite certain people to again talk about my terrible taste in video games.

If I'm mod again, I'll just do what I usually do
 * Be frequently active
 * Check All things in moderation
 * Contribute to RationalWiki
 * Assume good faith, but try to remain respectful and focused on the argument even if good faith is exhausted
 * Rename offensive usernames
 * Rely on simple and to the point messages as primary form of moderation. I.e. the light touch.
 * Listen to constructive criticism on my behavior

And some new duties
 * Try getting my sister to be active again, she's a good editor and she can help out in subjects including law enforcement and Russia.
 * Monitor RationalWiki Discord every now and then, post in rat-workshop channel for advice/comment in content disputes relevant to RationalWiki
 * Check vandal and ban logs more frequently

Player 2 is in the spotlight now!

Since my joining of Ratwiki earlier this year, I have been making a conscious effort to monitor the recent activity page and contribute where I see necessary. Though my interests and sense of humor may not coincide with a lot of the other members of this wiki, I feel that is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe in truth and information with a dash of snark, and I feel RationalWiki delivers greatly in that aspect, and I want to do everything I can to help contribute and make the wiki a place of learning. If I am to be elected not much would change from how I operate now. I would continue to monitor the wiki activity and make changes where necessary, only now with the added benefits of being a mod at my disposal. I would take care to use the powers I have only in moderation and in good faith, and to act reasonably when taking constructive criticism.

Though I am relatively new, I believe fresh blood is exactly what this wiki needs. 17:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I promise only to continue writing really really really long articles about the legal troubles plaguing the Trump Administration. And attempt to push this platform to include more pages about sports. And I guess use my mod powers to continue to allow this platform to be safe for everyone? Yeah that. RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC) I feel like this isn't good enough so allow me to write my manifesto: I discovered this website earlier this year while looking up serial killers. I found myself going down a rabbit hole after watching American Horror Story, and needing to find some context. I was delighted to find a platform committed to the things I was committed to, seeking the truth through evidence and presenting complex arguments in simple forms, sprinkled with snark and swear words. I felt an immediate connection to many of the articles about misinformation and propaganda. Eventually, after the release of the report on the Russian interference in the 2016 election,I was excited to see how the terrific writers of this site would break it down. But no one did. I felt it was my duty then to do it myself. With virtually to wiki experience, and time to dive deeply into the document, I spent the better part of three weeks compiling a fair and reasoned page about serious threats to American democracy.

The response to my work encouraged me to continue tweaking, and then consider my next step. When the opportunity presented itself months later, I found my voice again describing the phone call that may very likely result in only the third President in American history being impeached. While I continue to update each of these pages, I did discover a critical flaw, my wiki skills were not good enough to present a true experience. I sought others to assist me, and have thoroughly enjoyed the contributions of others to make my pages the best they can be.

I will say clearly, that I am likely the least experienced candidate in more ways than one. But my commitment to the values of this platform are undeniable. And I hope to write future articles about the issues plaguing sport in America, where I believe this wiki is lacking despite the fact that many issues are consistent with the goals of this platform. There are many candidates here I respect and trust to be good mods. But if you would like someone still learning, still without a defined style open to learn, support me. Thank you.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am a great believer in Mods doing NOTHING unless called upon. They should endeavour to MODERATE (hence the title) between conflicting views not impose theirs upon others. That's all - King Log rather than King Stork. Scream!! (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For all candidates
I expect answers. 05:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Importantly, no, I'd never display a hunting trophy of any kind. If I inherited one, I'd get rid of it immediately. I'm not superstitious at all. I don't believe in curses and I'd happily spend a night in a cemetery for nothing because there's no such thing as ghosts. Less importantly, I've never had a job as a waiter or been mountain biking. I'd like to collaborate on the writing of an English as a foreign language textbook. So I guess that's what I'd like to do when I grow up. The correct tip is one pound (or 50 New Taiwan dollars). The answer to most of the other questions is "yes". Spud (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * DuceMoosolini, can you write your question as text so I don't have to look at the video. Thanks. Bongolian (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Have you called a plumber into your home lately?"
 * Yes. For kart racing, partying, chasing rabbits, playing soccer as a contact sport, possessing objects, and for cleaning muck off walls. I was going to have this plumber wrestle and play volleyball at the same time, but the plumber said it would violate his code of honor. 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I support trophies, especially the teeth I've collected from Nazi's after being punched.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For all candidates: major mainspace edits?
I like to see commitment to main goals. Chatting in Saloon Bar is fine! But I like to see some major mainspace projects you accomplished or are working on. I created full articles on Abortion doping, Marianne Williamson, and Diet soda and I gave the Content Expansion Mushroom to to Felony disenfranchisement, Del Bigtree, and crisis pregnancy center. 08:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be frank, who gives a shit. My major contribution to RW has been community engagement, policy development and basically being a chilled out entertainer. I have stuck my toes in and created and edited content here but I get my rocks off on making this a vibrant and interesting place. Acei9 08:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd draw your attention to the list of translations I've done. Spud (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've written a few articles, but I've said before mainspace work isn't a strong point. I do make a lot of contributions to WIGO though. One of my additions is at #7 on Best of the world, if that means anything. --RWRW (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've formatted and reformatting articles, going dozens if not hundreds in a month to make sure they're up to date. I've also been one of the chief vandal/troll reverters. I feel I'm at least doing the minimum. 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles I've created are listed on my user page, but I`m most proud of the Vikings article, technically started by Annanoon but the bulk of the work was done by me, I also am currently working on the old Plymouth Colony article which I transferred to my draft space. — Oxyaena Harass  20:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I beg to differ with Ace on this. For moderation purposes, it can be useful having a general knowledge of a range of mainspace pages on RW when disputes arise over content and not just policy. There's nothing better than editing pages for gaining an understanding of the content. 2) As detailed on "User:Bongolian", I've created more than 40 mainspace pages and made significant revisions of several others. Some of the revisions were involved with the aim moving pages to gold, including: Holocaust denial, Fake news (which unfortunately is getting to be somewhat dated), Appeal to nature, and Aristolochia. Bongolian (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, I've been here 12 years - I have more than just a general knowledge of the mainspace. Acei9 03:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I lost count of all the articles I created long ago, but it was several dozen. Now I just kinda hang out and help tidy up. I once tried and failed to get rid of the To-Do list, though, so um... maybe I shouldn't have admitted that? Avida Dollarsher again 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Ace: I was not questioning whether you specifically had knowledge of RW, but rather your position of whether mainspace edits matter. In my view mainspace edits matter because they're evidential in so far as they show what a candidate knows about RW. Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Avida Dollars: I don't see how it hurts you in any way. Not sure what you mean by "failing to get rid of it"? You mean complete everything? Or that you don't like the idea of a list? 02:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean I didn't like the idea of a list that just said "somebody write this article for me please." I thought if people wanted an article they should write it themselves. Since then I've given up trying to abolish it, and these days I even add to it. Avida Dollarsher again 20:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have too much to offer, however I have made several contributions to the Notch page and helped get it out of draft hell. 17:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller investigation and Trump-Ukraine Scandal are my labors of love masochism.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For all candidates: Is corn grass?
Well? 08:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But you can't play football on it. Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing that you can't put it in a fruit salad.Spud (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can put lemons or bitter melon in a fruit salad but no one disputes that! 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Corn evolved from the wild grass teosinte, so yes, cladistically speaking corn is a grass. — Oxyaena Harass  20:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edible grass! 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Corn can fuck right off. Tastes awful, both in organic and candy forms. Also corn tried to beat up my younger brother once so there's that. Acei9 22:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate how corn gets stuck in my teeth. But I like it in both organic and candy form so I'm also weird. Sorry for corn beating up your younger brother, but you should rethink eating it because afaik corn hates getting eaten. 22:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Corn should be tortured and burned. Acei9 22:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What kind of torture may I ask? It's already getting horrifically deformed for generations for our personal gain and consumption. 22:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have it raped by a walrus? Acei9 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't think corn particularly cares about that. 22:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh but it does. No one wants to be raped by a walrus. I wrote about is here some years ago - a graphic depiction. Acei9 22:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Corn (US) or Maize (UK) is a type of grass because it is in the family, which is botanically synonymous with grasses. As an aside, sugarcane is also a type of grass. Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Get the fuck outta here with that science bullshit. Corn is the devil incarnate. Burn the witch! Acei9 02:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would enjoy editing a more science-hostile wiki? Their page on corn is practically science-free and does not even mention grass. Bongolian (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How does a site say evolution doesn't exist, but doesn't question domestication of anything? 03:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As alluded to on the Conservapedia corn page, the subspecies of creationist known as the baraminologist has argued that microevolution exists (6000 years) but macroevolution does not (billions of years). Bongolian (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm certain there is a scientific answer, but as a human person, grass usually doesn't have much nutritional value so: corn =/= grass. RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a dream about what a treat it is to eat lush green grass last night. At least there weren't any Nazis in it. Spud (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)qq

RWRW

 * Do you oppose ideological sanctions for Nazis (including the alt-right)? Why or why not? Bongolian (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to blocking Nazis, assuming they are actually Nazis. Not the sort of folk you want around here. Alt-right too. --RWRW (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you didn't answer the why/why not question. Bongolian (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Specifically, how do you reconcile your campaign pledge ("Oppose ideological sanctions") vs. ("I wouldn't be opposed to blocking Nazis")? Bongolian (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think its unreasonable to draw a distinction between a dissenter and someone who holds outright racist views. --RWRW (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you correct your campaign poster's weird use of all-caps and text alignment oddities? 20:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any issue with the capitals. The "S'" in "Strong and Stable" are capitals as it's a reference to Theresa May's ill-fated 2017 election slogan. As for the text alignment... I made it on some free online poster maker I found on like page 5 of results... I don't think we're gonna get anything better. --RWRW (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

For all candidates, not just RWRW
Since block policy has been somewhat arbitrary of late, as highlighted by Ace, and that some candidates are strongly for blocking Nazis, I feel it only fair to ask what that actually means for people, and elaborate their rationale on blocks in general. how Nazi must a Nazi be to incur a block? does a bit racist count? must they actively disruptive or more argue in favour Nazi type stuff? Sudetenland or Poland? what if they make the claim of being a Nazi but steer clear of anywhere that might impact? Seriously though, some clarification please, especially if its something you've made a point of in your campaigning AMassiveGay (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at my proposed solution over on the mod talkpage you'll see my position. If someone signs-up and openly states their beliefs on their User page then I wouldn't block first, ask questions later. However once they started editing the main space in such a fashion I would tell them to shut the fuck up first, block second. Acei9 22:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But the point is moot because mods don't have any special powers to block users and are just like any other sysop until such a time as it is brought to them via the mod talkpage. So the question you're asking applies to the community at large - not just mods. Acei9 22:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * this is no doubt true, but 2 candidates have hinted towards some kind of a position and rwrw received an oddly pedantic grilling over the subject. it might also just be illuminating on how they'd handle things generally AMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as Oxy goes she is dead wrong on how to handle blocking users - Mods are not super users with more blocking authority. Same goes for any other mod. Acei9 22:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And my position as mod would be to keep mods who try to be some kind of blocking authority in line with the community and moderator standards. Acei9 22:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Ace on this. If anyone is seeking more power from being a moderator, they're sadly mistaken: being a moderator is perhaps overrated. The ultimate power is the mob and the coop. Oftentimes, people with offensive views, when given enough latitude, eventually find their way into violating specific rules (e.g., edit warring) and then getting banned. Bongolian (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly right - the mob holds the power. Moderators just enforce the mobs will when it comes to blocking. Acei9 02:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also generally agree with Ace on this. Trolling is the issue because no serious Nazi is likely to waste their time trying to recruit here. The mob decides the latitude. Community standards allow for sanctions, i.e., promotion, against sysops who would troll other users, despite being repeatedly warned. Ace is right about talking first. I am against allowing myself to be triggered by vocabulary alone.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not recruitment I'm concerned about, I'm worried that letting explicit Nazis unblocked is a display of tolerating the intolerable. P.S. I really don't like the casual use of "trigger", can you please just say "overreact" instead. 20:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I promise not to overreact to vocabulary alone. Now that I know you object to the other word, I won't use it again.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario
I'll just throw my own stance. I think usernames with Neo-Nazi references should be indef banned (i.e. should not be used or edited under). I also think Neo-Nazis shouldn't be tolerated even if they do not disrupt the community. This is per paradox of tolerance; I also don't want others to feel threatened and alienated as tolerating Neo-Nazis will do. Neo-Nazi viewpoints are inherently disruptive given the widely-accepted offensiveness. We do ban offensive usernames, a form of viewpoint, on sight. However, identifying Neo-Nazis is a bit of a shaky criteria when you factor dogwhistles. Of course, people that praise Hitler, advocate genocide of Jews, praise concentration camps, spread Jewish conspiracy theories are Nazis. Holocaust denial isn't strictly Nazism but it is closely related, if not a subset, to antisemitism. Antisemitism is also not interchangeable with Neo-Nazism, but still is considered offensive viewpoint in the wiki, and I've seen overtly anti-semitic comments being a ticket to get banned. The combination 14/88 in of itself isn't bannable unless the user of that 14/88 uses it knowing the Nazi context. Unironically blaming things on "Cultural Marxism" isn't a sign of a Neo-Nazi despite the talking point being originally Neo-Nazi. Even swastikas require context before determining who is a Nazi given the popularity of the symbol in other cultures.

There's one example where the accusation of "Neo-Nazi" was too far. This subject has been accused of being an endorsement of Nazism despite no clear and explicit evidence it is. This is an unacceptable accusation, and it also concerns me that the campaign promise coincides with this baseless accusation. Being "a little racist" (not sure how that's specified since no example is given) isn't equivalent to being a Nazi. I think people who talk about black IQ or black crime should get an earful (depending on context since arguing that can range from being simply ignorant to being intellectually dishonest) but can't say it's a ban (not talking about hereditarianism trolls) or even say they're racist, again, context matters.

Anyway, I hope this is adequately answered, and if you have additional comments or objections to my viewpoints, you can say. 04:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

GrammarCommie
Mostly the same as the others, with one exception. Repeated shitposting in the Saloon has been removed in the past, with at least temporary blocks put in place. While blocks or Binning may be optional, I stand behind removing clear white supremacist/Nazi shitposting in the Saloon. Examples would include concern trolling about I.Q., concern trolling about why we're so mean to Nazis, concern trolling about crime rates, etc. Platforming these views is harmful and scares off potential newcomers, especially in this current political climate. Obviously this would be subject to a case by case basis, but such topics rarely result in productive dialog in my experience. 05:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Although you have no way of knowing if this is true or not, I am of a similar vintage to Ace around these parts, am a psychologist, have published in the field of IQ testing and might even be considered somewhat of an expert in the field. Your article on IQ is not even wrong and my attempts to fix it has lead to the talk page being IP-locked. Admittedly the field of IQ attracts all kinds of provocateurs (usually race-based), but in a reflexive attempt to own them, you have also locked out people who actually know what they are talking about. The reasons behind all the strange cultural norms here (such as not using broad based IP blocks) used to be institutional knowledge, learned the hard way by observing the gradual decline of other wikis. Not so much anymore. If you think you can block, restrict and deplatform your way to a thriving wiki, have a look at how that worked out elsewhere.
 * Nothing to do with you GrammarCommie, I've no idea who you are or what you stand for, just a general comment. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * — Oxyaena Harass  21:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Spud
And I'll state my position. This is indeed something for the whole community to consider, even the very few users who don't want to be sysops can express an opinion about it, but I think mods can set an example by what they do and don't do.

Really, to suggest that ideological bans are a problem on this wiki is ridiculous. Nobody would ever get banned for saying that they vote for Donald Trump or Boris Johnson, that they believe in God, that the Earth is flat or that Elvis shot Kennedy from the other side of the looking-glass. They only get blocked for expressing the most heinous of views. I blocked user:Jcthegreat1988, a self-confessed fascist whose user page had a link to his Gab account on which he called for all Jews to be killed. You can't get much more Nazi than that, even though technically his call for all Jews to be murdered wasn't on this wiki. And I think taking the unilateral decision to block him was one of the best things I ever did here.

If I were the King of the Wiki, I'd be a lot more heavy handed with the banhammer than I am. But I know I'm not the absolute monarch here and, out of respect for RationalWiki's traditions, I hold myself back a bit. I see obvious troublemakers creating new accounts. I get a gut feeling that a new account is the sock of a banned user. I do nothing until the troublemaker actually causes trouble or the banned users give themselves away beyond any doubt. That's not the case for users with offensive user names, of course. They should be banned on sight.

To try to reduce talk of ideological bans, I think it's time that we revise the message on the Main Page that says we encourage those who disagree with us to engage in constructive dialogue. Let's face it, that was written with Conservapedia users in mind. Whoever wrote it probably thought it would be a bit of a giggle to encourage bible-thumpers to try to convince us that God created the world in seven days 6,000 years ago then nearly destroyed it in a worldwide flood. I'm sure whoever wrote that message couldn't have imagined that one day we'd be dealing with people who genuinely believe that some ethnic groups are biologically superior to others or that all women are evil. if you click on the link in that Main Page message, it does say that courtesy isn't extended to people whose arguments rely on racism, sexism or other hateful views. But I think it should clearly say that on the Main Page itself. Spud (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's time that we revise the message on the Main Page that says we encourage those who disagree with us to engage in constructive dialogue. 100% disagree. We'd need to completely overhaul the community standards for a start. Secondly - these questions and proposed solutions are outside of the mods purview.T This entire line of questioning relates to RW as a whole - not the moderator standards. Changing the that message on the homepage isn't part of a mods job. Mods aen't super users with powers to overhaul the site. These things go before the mob, not the mods. It seems people are losing sight of what the mods actually do. Acei9 05:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I'd act unilaterally in changing that message on the Main Page. It's what I think now needs to be done but I wouldn't do it if the mob disagreed with me. I tell you what, if I am reelected. I will suggest doing exactly what I just said in the Saloon Bar. If the mob agrees with me, then I will add at the bottom of the message, "This does not include people whose arguments rely on racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate speech", or something like that. If the mob does not agree with me, i'll leave the message exactly as it is and I'll never bring the matter up again. (Although if anybody else ever suggests the same thing, then I'll support them.) But I'll say again that RationalWiki in 2019 is a very different place from RationalWiki in 2007. Our opponents aren't meek and mild Christians anymore. They're fascists now. Spud (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? You think it was just “meek and mild” Christians before and now it’s different? Dude, it’s been the same trolling and bullshit since day 1 - nothing has changed so we don’t need some kind of new policy. Sexism etc has never been welcome. We don’t a new policy for an old problem. Acei9 06:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Our old enemies didn't want to commit genocide. — Oxyaena Harass  10:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have "enemies" for a start and this site has attracted right-wing, racism, nazi trolls since the get go. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, Oxy. Acei9 21:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Alt-Right didn't exist when this site started out, so bullshit. — Oxyaena Harass  20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen numbnuts - I repeat, this site has attracted right-wing, racism, nazi trolls since the get go. Alt-Right or not, this site has attracted right-wing, racism, nazi trolls since the get go. Acei9 22:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxy, new-Nazis and racists long predate the label “alt-right”. Of course they were pests before. Your argument there doesn’t make any sense. 22:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena
I agree, Nazis should get permabanned. We permabanned Ambition of Truth, and the guidelines aren't set rules anyways. — Oxyaena Harass  10:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ambition of Truth wasn't a Nazi (despite using rhetoric that echoes Nazi documents, which I assume was used for rhetorical effect and not to endorse Nazism) and actually disavowed white supremacism by accusing me of stooping low to resort to their tactics. Ambition of Truth wrote a completely unacceptable essay on women (which I don't feel like getting into specifics for the sake of brevity) and doubled-down when I placed it under buried turds. GrammarCommie followed through a threat to coop, and it was unanimously decided to ban. 20:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * People should only be permabanned after a coop and community vote. I know you get your rocks off on banning but you don't decide on your own. Neither do mods. Acei9 00:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you may be unintentionally making an overstatement, Ace. When you say "people" do you mean any random schmuck who comes here or do you mean Sysops? Bongolian (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't really be permabanning anyone at first edit/s. But yeah - a bit of an overstatement. Acei9 00:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ace can you fuck off for once. Someone shouting "DEATH TO JEWS" is probably worthy of a permaban without second thought. — Oxyaena Harass  20:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fuck off pal. This page is for discussions around the mod elections. Given I've been nominated and accepted it I don't have to go anywhere. Acei9 22:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a prick who's clearly not fit for being a mod, but, you know, you do you I guess. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  06:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, given I know the community standards inside and out, as well as what the role of a mod entails (which you clearly do not) and I was actually involved in creating the role itself while helping define the rules of moderation I would say I'm pretty clearly fit for the role. Acei9 06:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But the real question is - how come you keep prodding me? Perhaps you should just back off and go sulk somewhere. Acei9 06:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your lack of self awareness is astounding. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen boy, why are you still jabbering at me? Acei9 21:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've long since worried about you - how come you keep coming back to me, embarrassing yourself, then repeating it all over again? Acei9 03:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I`m not the one embarrassing myself, also boredom. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  11:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're also projecting again. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  13:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

We have better solutions for Boredom. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I`m not one to give up to assholes. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ariel31459
Ostensibly, a moderator should act to effect community standards. I would take the view that a moderator who takes it upon them self to block a user for being a Nazi (or any reason) should be subject to the review of the community: immediate review by the other moderators, and by the mob if necessary. A manifestation of Nazism in media is like the worst kind of pornography. Some people might think it's bad, but (like our republican friends), not impeachable; while others burst into flames. Users who are upsetting others should be asked to stop. Moderators should confer whenever possible before acting in ambiguous cases. I would be likely to put a temporary block on anyone who called them self a Nazi, advocated violence or hatred against demographic groups. The mob could handle the rest.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian
I support following the current block policy (RationalWiki:Blocking policy) unless and until it is modified by popular vote. There will undoubtedly be issues that arise that are open to interpretation, and if there are disputes about the interpretation, they are of course open to debate and if necessary a coop case.

A case in point for people with offensive views eventually violating our rules came right here to the Campaigning page: Nazioid User:Flipper was warned but not blocked about not being a Nazi in the Saloon (:User talk:Flipper, hat tip to LeftyGreenMario). Nazioid came back to the Campaigning page and tried to JAQ some Nazi ideas (vandalism, 3-day blocked by Tinribmancer) but also harassed one of our Sysops (I extended the block to 3 weeks). At this point if anyone wants to permaban the Nazi, it wouldn't bother me. Bongolian (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Three weeks does the job. You know how quickly trolls get blocked again even if they decide to wait that out. 20:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Avida Dollars
as one of the "Block Nazis!" candidates, I'd better clarify that I do actually make a distinction between Nazis and conservatives, and that a little questioning soon sorts whose far-right rhetoric is just bluster and whose is meant. But really, people who spout the same old racist crap (especially when it's JAQing off) over and over again aren't needed and ought to be blocked.

RipCityLiberal
From my handle, my opinion about Nazi's should be clear. But if I could expand a bit, I feel as though we need to be clear that our specific concern boils down to banning people who hold all of the following beliefs in concert: To avoid any assholes who say "i'M nOt a NAzI, ThIS isN't GERmaNy", this should eliminate any question about where their ideology lies. Though I am a firm believer in the right for people to express themselves, this platform doesn't have any Free Speech requirements, and those of us with power are bound to use that power to ensure that the platform remains a place where people can express themselves without fear, without violence, without intimidation, and without threats to their very existence.
 * Believe non-white people are inferior to white people
 * Support taking rights away from non-white people

Ace AMA
I'll answer any question - related to the position of Moderator or not. Acei9 22:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So no one has any questions for me relating to me as a potential mod or otherwise? Here I was thinking I was more interesting than that. Ah well... Acei9 23:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you an ace of spades? 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the Motorhead sense...yes. Acei9 23:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. You've been around here for quite some time. What do you consider to be your best and worst experiences with RationalWiki since you joined the mob here? Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Easily the best part was the excitement and real sense of community the site had in the early days - 2008 to 2011 (approx). The worst part was during 2012 I think when there were arguments site wide between two different factions - the older group (which I was part of) butting heads with the newer users who didn't quite understand how the community worked and seemed to enjoy the individual power over community spirit. It was after this period that the mod role was created to bring some semblance of a community wide style guide of sorts. Acei9 00:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll ask a question (and I expect other candidates to answer also). Will you rule out accepting corporate PAC money offered to your campaign? --RWRW (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All the money is being funneled though the Ace McWicked Foundation which is located at the liquor store down the street. Acei9 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All money for my campaign is either being funded out of my own pocket (hence the minimalist ads) or is donated by grassroots supporters. Patreon link. 00:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you miss any particular Old Guard idiots? 00:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Very much so - I am friends with Nutty Roux, Human, Psygremlin (who I had the pleasure of meeting IRL last time I was Johannesburg) and Sterile on Facebook but I very much miss Kels, Goonie Punk and Toast who sadly died. There ae probably many ore I miss but that's it from the top of my head. Acei9 00:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ace, which of the nine alignments do you fall into? The people have a right to know! 00:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This interview is over! Acei9 00:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For Nazi punchers
Would you punch a Nazi that has saved hundreds of thousands of Chinese people's lives? 06:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would punch a Nazi even if it promised that it would bring my mother back from the grave.RipCityLiberal (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a violent man. I'd rather not thump anybody. Or throw a milkshake at anybody for that matter. And if he'd saved the lives of hundreds and thousands of non-white (that is to say, Chinese) people, that would suggest he could be persuaded to give up the racism. Spud (talk)
 * I'm not a known Nazi puncher, but I'd only do it in self-defense. I know who you're thinking of. Bongolian (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you slap a unicorn that kidnapped a leprechaun? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Violence against mythical animals should only be resorted to when all else fails. I assume this unicorn has a human-like level of intelligence. I'd therefore try to reason with it and negotiate the safe return of the leprechaun. Ask me a silly question and I'll try to give you a sensible answer. Spud (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But your failure to recognize the equal-if-not-greater silliness of the original question's premise reflects badly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Silly though it sounds, Spud (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

RipCityLiberal
Should the bagel become the official breakfast bread of rationalwiki¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are better options, like black tea with 3 sugars in a cracked and stained white porcelain cup.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian
Should an enormous stuffed teddybear be considered a valid support animal brought on a domestic airline flight¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because it's a potential safety hazard. Modest-sized ones should be acceptable to all. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario
Which game is best played by teengae boys taking mushrooms for the first time: Marioparty, mariokart or super mario world¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mario Party without a doubt. Any console Mario Party. Wacky dice block fun and it generally brings out the worst in gamers despite it being overlooked in favor of the relatively relaxing GTA games. 17:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RightyBlueLuigi
Do you think Leftgreenmario has a body odour problem¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I never got to this one, I've been sick all week! @-@ I know voting has already started but I figured I'd answer anyway, I don't know Lefty personally so I can't say for certain whether or not they have a body odor problem, however if they play Smash Bros. then I should confidently be able to say they do. 16:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ariel31459
Do you think that the US is ready for an atheist anti-vax pansexual invisible Bhuddist yoga instructor¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We are almost there now. That's what I intend to put on my new business card (after I go to get my flu shot). Ariel31459 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Spud
Which Marvel or D.C. superhero best emblemizes rationalwiki these days considering climate change and the growing threat of vegan restaurants¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to choose Firestar just because she was originally created for the 1981 cartoon series Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends. It would have been nearly two years later when that show finally made it to the UK and, as a 10-year old, I loved it. Spud (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

RWRW
How could rationalwiki better bring awareness to rationalwiki's Vietnamese speaking users from the planet Xorg-Xorg¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, an important cause! In 2019 the best way of raising awareness is an aggressive social media campaign. David Gerard runs the RW Twitter account and likely has more knowledge and experience of it than any of us, so I’d like RobSmith to lead this campaign. --RWRW (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

GrammarCommie
Boris Johnson would have us believe that the sky is green. How would you fight back to ensure the people never forget that the sky is actually purple¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Very simply. We must point out that grass is green, and obviously grass and the sky cannot be the same color. Therefor, the sky is not green. 19:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RipCityLiberal
What do you think about the sinister invasion of dead quacks' spirits online¿ Should we use demonic AI to fight back their aggressive promotion of healing crystals¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend we mock these people incessantly to the point that decide to go back under the rock they crawled under from.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Ace McWicked
Is Trump really the worst possible American president¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - but the US gets the president it deserves. Acei9 21:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Avida Dollars
Life...you know¿ Shabi  DOO  08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Innit! Avida Dollarsher again 11:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidate endorsement sheet
1. User since September 2011. Currently a sysop and moderator. 2. User since June 2017. Currently a sysop and moderator.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Has been a excellent moderator. Bongolian (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) All around great. Reelect. 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, he's a neat potato. He's mature, respectful, constructive, experienced, very pleasant to chat with. Valued in this community, would do a great job as a mod. I have no objections. 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, well respected and experienced. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) He's the spud you like. Avida Dollarsher again 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Do not replace what isn't broken. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) One of the best members of the present mod team. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Not a jerk, has a clue —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I wholeheartedly endorse this event, holiday and/or moderator. Acei9 04:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I actually think RWRW has been a pretty good moderator, which is why I nominated him. Reelect. 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Okayish endorsement. This isn't for abusing powers or making decisions based on ideological differences but for simply not engaging as frequently as I like. Probably engages the least from the other fellow moderators from my experience (though acceptable when RWRW does) and I like to see more participation mainspace disputes as I've seen in other mods, which also require mod attention. 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Good friend of mine and capable moderator. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) So far, so good. No fuss, no muss.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) When he first made Mod I thought "this isn't gonna be good" but it's actually been a pleasant surprise to see what he's really like. Avida Dollarsher again 21:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Calm and capable, a clear choice for mod. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Not a jerk, has a clue —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Has been doing a good job, lets keep him. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 12) While I actually have nothing specific to complain about RWRW's tenure as moderator, I cannot deny that I continue to have qualms about him as a moderator. After my repeatedly pushing him to actually add content of substance to mainspace pages, he did in fact create two quality mainspace pages (Heinrich Himmler and Ernst Kaltenbrunner) and started a mainspace page that was mostly finished by others (Philippe Pétain). Other than these pages, he is still a rare contributor to mainspace in my view. My real concern though is his views surrounding Brexit, and his apparently flippant concern about human rights vis à vis Brexit, which AMassiveGay and I discussed with him on his talk page (User talk:RWRW/Archive1). My concern boils down to this from the discussion: 1) RWRW believes in the existence of inalienable/nonfungible human rights 2) RWRW believes that a simple majority vote should not be able to remove fundamental human rights 3) RWRW is by all appearances gives full support to Brexit (Essay:Why I oppose the EU), which at least at the time of the discussion, was going to remove human rights in the UK by a simple majority vote. So, while RWRW claims that the EU is undemocratic (Essay:Why I oppose the EU), he actually has supported something that is undemocratic: a simple majority removing the rights of minorities (Democracy). Note: I do not wish to imply that all Brexit supporters were or are antidemocratic, because it seems that almost no one understood the full consequences of the vote when it occurred. Bongolian (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing of the above has anything to do with being a mod. Acei9 00:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, ideology plays no role in fulfilling moderator duties. 00:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about ideology per se, but what amounts to de facto opposition to democracy. Democracy is a lot more than just voting: minority rights is fundamental to democracy. One of our purposes at RW is opposition to authoritarianism, and removing minority rights is authoritarian behavior. Bongolian (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it still doesn't matter for moderation. By all means don't vote for him but doing on personal ideology is pretty silly. Acei9 01:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

3. User since November 2014. Currently a sysop and tech. 4. User since July 2017. Currently a sysop. 5. User since April 2016. Currently a sysop.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Good faith endorsement. I think Oxy has matured a lot over the past year, but there’s still room for improvement. Going forward I’d like to see less heavy-handedness with blocking and binning. --RWRW (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm a huge fucking fan of Oxy. Though they have sharp elbows and don't make a lot of friends, I find that the enemies they make are the right ones. Also very active user which helps.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 5) Oxyaena has stated Vote for me and nuisance trolls and dipshit Nazis will no longer be tolerated on this platform. That is all. which is not the job of a mod. A mod isn't in charge of blocking policy and has the same blocking rights as any other sysop. Doesn't appear to know what the mod job is actually about. I expect she'll tit-for-tat anti-endorse me for saying so which doesn't really speak to the maturity required for mod. Acei9 03:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) I like Oxyaena, but I don't think she has the right temperament or necessary maturity to be a moderator. 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't want to make it personal, and while I do like the user being around, I don't believe Oxyaena is fit for moderator tools either. Loses temper easily, isn't constructive (this), has an itchy finger for the ban and vandal button (the All things in moderation was recent but I also commented too months ago), dragged drama from Discord (1 and 2), showed poor judgement with demoting users in the past (e.g. giving Ambition of Truth, known MRA piece of work, sysop tools), and has a history of feeding trolls. Even if user kept a cooler head, she still has a history of attempting to retire only to return, which I don't like for a job that requires fairly consistent activity. I do like to see improvement, but it'll take some time before I'm more confident Oxyaena will make a proper mod. I do appreciate you accepted the nomination since it's an opportunity to hear some frank criticism and to improve in the future, so please don't be discouraged and instead use this as a learning opportunity. 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) I still have my doubts about her. Pretty red-pillish too. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Too immature and too heavy handed imho. Sorry. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I think GC would be a good choice for a new moderator. 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Has been a consistent presence with quality edits. Level-headed. Bongolian (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) I like his presence in the community, he's valued here. GrammarCommie has been a fairly long-time user, responds to vandalism, locks pages during edit wars with BoNs and for never too long, responds to moderation problems, all stuff I like to see from mods. I want to see how GrammarCommie likes to be a mod. I do hope, however, that GC will try to turn the language down a notch. 1 an example. I also have seen all-caps posting, but not recently to be fair. I do expect people to sometimes write comments they regret later since people are people, but I hope this doesn't happen in important mod moments. Anyway, I have enthusiasm for GC and I am glad he accepted his nomination.  08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Im quite fond of Grammarcommie Shabi DOO  06:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Has shown respect for and dedication to RationalWiki's mission. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Good reliable editor. Avida Dollarsher again 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Quick on the draw when banning trolls and Lomax socks. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Hard worker. Deserves a kick downstairs.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Big fucking fan of this fellow.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Not a jerk, has a clue —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 13) I honestly want to support this guy. But he's a bit heavy handed. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Seems pretty okay and doesn't flame despite ideological differences from me. I don't have much else to say, however, since Ariel doesn't engage a lot and he frequently rubs with ikanreed from my experience. 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I voted for him in the Board elections, happy to do so again. --RWRW (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Reluctant yes. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 6) Terrible editor with the worst possible judgement and stupendously querulous arguments. Will promptly use this to try to force Jordan Peterson to his preferred fan version - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) What Gerard said. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be true that I am, in some sense, a terrible editor. But it is regrettable for you to accuse me of intending to enforce my personal opinions in any articles I have in the past shown an interest in, especially as I have resolved to do no such thing. I am not under the illusion that the moderator role affords any special privileges for the user. My object in any edit is not to create balance, but a realistic perspective. Ridicule all you want. Please stop making false statements.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Per their reply to the above criticism, ariel has an incredibly strong tendency to take everything personally, especially when terribly terribly wrong on basic facts. Way worse than me about it and I'm pretty fucking bad on that front.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know, Ike. I just nominated you for moderator. Think about it. You are not that bad, except for your crazy anti-Nazi thing. As for taking things personally, personal attacks are often taken personally, especially when offered in lieu of sound arguments. Even moderators are human. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

6. User since October 2018 (2007 under different username). Currently a sysop.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Old Guard - we need more of these around. Acei9 03:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Didn't observe much experience aside from useful comments in Articles for Deletion, but Avida Dollars would be an acceptable mod. I don't think Avida Dollars participate a lot in the community, but I can be corrected if I'm simply overlooking edits. 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) While not extremely active, they would make a fine choice for moderator. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) She's been my favourite member of the genuine Old Guard for a long time now. She's usually right about most things. But I don't owe her $10,000. Spud (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * [[image:Laughing.gif]] Avida Dollarsher again 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Takes no shit while not full of shit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

7. User since March 2008. Currently a sysop.
 * 1) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 2) No. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I think he'd be a good mod. 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I think he's good too. He has experience here, and he's tried to help me, gave me helpful advice before when I was newer to moderation. We can disagree on a few things but he has good faith and I do believe he does have the wiki's best interests in mind when he argues 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Cares about the place, knows the way to do things, is in a good time zone (can watch over RW while we sleep) and has awesome eyebrows. Avida Dollarsher again 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Reminds me of someone. I forget.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Ace’s views on blocking are very similar to my own. --RWRW (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Highly experienced, level headed, absolute yes. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 9) Because he dared me to, and I think his ruckus is a nonissue to start with, even told me harassers don't deserve to get permabanned. Seems to not know what human judgement is and how it works in regards to spotting permabanned users. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Ace is also too combative to be a good mod, as well as too petty. He's still obsessing over the vandal bin "issue" weeks after it was finished for instance. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  20:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WTF are you talking about? I haven't mentioned the vandal bin at all. There's something not right about you. Acei9 22:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * QED. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  02:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess your age to be about 13 or 14. Acei9 02:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why you shouldn't be mod., thoughts? So, again, QED. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  06:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do sometimes think he's unnecessarily combative and makes me roll my eyes but I don't think it hurts his qualifications. And probably shouldn't speculate about age, as RobSmith is afaik older than me or you and he's more petulant and whiny. 06:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know ths site inside and out so I'm pretty well qualified for the job of a mod. You don't seem to understand the community standards nor the job description of being a mod (hint - it doesn't involve defining blocking policy/have extended blocking rights). Acei9 06:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Acting like a petty brat and then projecting that unto me, such as by questioning my age for no reason at all, suggests otherwise. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

8. User since April 2014. Currently a sysop and moderator.
 * 1) ;Goat
 * 2) I don't think Oxyeanas reply to Ace's possibly non-constructive anti-endorsement is convincing. But Ace's spat with Oxyeana on this page really makes me hesitate over voting for Ace. Modding is mostly the art of deescalating problems. At least that's how I've always seen it. Shabi  DOO  11:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) This dispute with Oxyeana is not a good sign for either party's moderation capabilities, as it's been inappropriately dragged over from the mod board with neither party willing to just let it be. Particularly disconcerting is that the dispute has become primarily personal rather than on the merits as it had started out, with Ace using gendered epithets (above) against Oxyeana (numbnuts and boy). Bongolian (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Overall, an excellent moderator. I highly recommend LeftyGreenMario. Bongolian (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Great mod. Reelect her. 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) She's a superstar. In addition to everything she's done for the wiki and the fantastic emotional support she gave me when I most needed it last year, I have to endorse her because I very much enjoyed the chat we had before the recent Board meeting and wish it could have gone on for a bit longer. Spud (talk)
 * 5) No brainer Shabi  DOO  06:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Awesome person to talk to and not to mention a fan of Mario. Heavily support. 17:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) All around fine representative of the wiki and its community. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Is pretty darn good Avida Dollarsher again 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Again, do not replace what isn't broken. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Thoughtful, reasonable, and ubiquitous on the wiki. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) No brainer. 00:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Big fucking fan.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Not a jerk, has a clue —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Probably this site's best ever moderator. Absolute yes. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) ;Goat (Neither Endorse nor Anti-endorse - just commentary)
 * 16) Generally I find LeftyGreenMario fair but I was concerned at the mod response when I raised a valid concern some weeks back. There was just a total disinterest from the mods, LGM being somewhat ambivalent more than engaged. There was little response to what, at the time, was something specifically brought to the mods attention. If you're a mod and something has been raised a little more engagement/pro-activity would have been expected. Acei9 05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you want to mention an event for commentary, please be specific about it rather than "I raised a valid concern some weeks back" (specific concern, specific time frame). I don't want to have to guess and risk the possibility that I might be commenting for nothing. I'm guessing you're referring to this. To be fair, moderation discussion can go by fast especially since I feel my time zone's a little off and so I sleep with few edits or even get off RationalWiki to game for a few hours, and I wake up to a lot of discussion already being made. I also sometimes comment on mobile rather than computer, which is often cumbersome and can lead to me not making extensive comments, though it's a timely response, better than nothing. Probably not the best method of communication still, but it's handy when I'm out. Nevertheless I'll try my best at engagement, especially for very serious problems (another thing is that I didn't find the vandal bin perma ban thing super contentious), and I think I still tried to engage. 07:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, this is an odd placement of commentary since it seems to be intended for mods in general rather than a problem unique to me. 20:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's all good man, was just saying the mods, including yourself I remember specifically, responded with a collective "Meh, what are ya going to do about it" shrug leaving me, a non-moderator to actually remind everyone of the blocking policy and lay out the solution. Is all good, I think you're a find moderator all the same. Acei9 22:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's great you took initiative. I probably should've said more since I was aware that blocks were being heavy-handed but I spent a lot of time trying to find specific Saloon Bar edits to support the claim that it's been like this for a while and had I found that one subject earlier, I certainly would've brought it up at the time. Also, just need to also mention about the apparent indifference", some of these users were wandals and I initially responded with a "meh, it's heavy-handed but the troll is done with and don't like to contest the blocks and potentially give trolls more attention". also I'll appreciate one endorsement from you, sorry for asking that, but if you like my job, an endorsement will be more of an official statement from you! 22:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

9. User since May 2014. Currently a sysop, moderator and tech. 10. User since April 2019. Currently a sysop. 11. User since March 2011. Currently a sysop. 12. User since April 2019. Currently a sysop. 13. User since January 2014. Currently a sysop.
 * 1) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Great mod, also one of the best content creators this wiki has. Reelect. 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah this one has no qualms from me, except for perhaps spending too much time disputing with RobSmith rather than spending valuable time creating great articles. Mature, respectful, patient, good judgement, all good potential mod qualities I've seen. 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Good all around. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Another goodun. Hmm, good crop of candidates this time round... Avida Dollarsher again 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) We are all Bongolian. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) What Mario said.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Good mod and has the word "bong" in their username. 00:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Fresh young blood with a new user perspective and an innocent eye for our brave new world! Shabi  DOO  00:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bongolian is young blood? 02:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FRESH young blood! Even a little spicy or shall we say...piquante? Shabi  DOO  04:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until the election results are published before we kill Bongolian and drain his blood for culinary purposes. 04:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) No idea why he nominated me, but I enjoy my brief collaborations immensely.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Not a jerk, has a clue —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 4) Nope. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Sure. Would be a fine addition to the mod ranks. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) If Mario is a mod, then so should Luigi. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) No reason not to. 169.198.254.65 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 6) Unoriginal username —   python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) ;Goat
 * 8) Thanks for accepting the nomination! While my initial impressions are positive I'd like to see more activity (such as dealing with content disputes) before I can make a confident judgement.  04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) The Old Guard's Old Guard. Avida Dollarsher again 21:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) One of the few I do recognize. Not super active, however. 18:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) No reason not to. 169.198.254.64 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Quality user of good genetic stock. Old Guard. Acei9 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I endorse RipCity, they're what this wiki needs. — <font color="Absolute Zero">Oxyaena <font color="Magenta">Harass  17:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Promising user. I have no qualms on this user becoming moderator. Lack of experience moderating isn't a huge problem due to the nature of the wiki being easily self-repaired. 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) I humbly endorse Shabi  DOO  10:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 6) ;Comments
 * May I see a campaign statement? That's great you accepted a nomination. It's always nice seeing some new faces attempt to step up. Are you busy? 18:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You've done excellent work here, but I haven't seen enough of your interactions with other people to make a decision in this election. 02:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You've done excellent work here, but I haven't seen enough of your interactions with other people to make a decision in this election. 02:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 3) ;Comments

Panzer Tanks
Okay, who wants to give me B7F clearance (I currently have B5F) for getting access to the Panzer tanks? I want one need one for testing out my cloaking devices. Cloaked Tanks are an important asset for "Operation Sturm" (I trust that everyone got brief a few days ago?). Tinribmancer (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Panzer tanks are German and isn't compatible with Communism so no. 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we could substitute T34s. Avida Dollarsher again 21:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm reelected, I'll post a lovely picture of a Panzer on your talk page. Spud (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)