Forum:RationalWiki election process

In the aftermath of the 2016 mod election, it's clear something needs to change. Let's make it happen. 01:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No sysoprevoke nominees
Can sysoprevoked users be nominated? CorruptUser (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently yes. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but probably wasn't an issue in the past.  19:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For next time: Should we add something like "users currently in community-sanctioned punishment cannot run for moderator"? 19:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If we adopt such a limitation, it should be carefully and exactly phrased to include only the kind and duration of sanctions that will make users ineligible to run. If we mean sysoprevoke, it should say sysoprevoke and be specific as to, for instance, whether users who are given back their mop in time to meet the nomination deadline can run. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think sysoprevoked users should be able to run. Becoming moderator, no matter where you "start" from, obviously requires gaining sysop (and beyond). Why am I arguing this — because I want sysoprevoked users to be able to become mods? Nope, and I don't think that's a risk. What I don't want is a conflation of sysoprevoked status and election season. It would start a whole shitstorm discussion on people having to be let out of sysoprevoke in order to participate in elections, etc. Keep the two separate, as it currently is. I do, however, support noting clearly that a user is sysoprevoked in the candidate fact sheet (as is also done currently). I'm still open to being persuaded differently (as on all topics, really) — but for now, my biggest concern regards the conflation of the right to stand for an open election and sysoprevoke preventing that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ScepticWombat (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My feeling is users who are vandal binned &/or sysoprevoked shouldn't be able to stand as a moderator candidate (since they're under restrictions because of proving they can't be trusted with basic abilities) but could still vote, & users who are blocked shouldn't be able to stand or vote. 22:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a sensible enough scenario — but how would you adress the problem of people begging to be let out of bins in order to run for elections? It will happen, and just like when you ask both parents (separately) if you can have an ice cream — the moderators won't be equally harsh on the same user, and they'll weasel (no pun intended) powerfully using various appeals to running for office. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same as anyone else begging to be resysoped or unbinned: the key considerations should be whether they've demonstrated good behaviour or are likely to cause trouble again, not merely wanting to do stuff that they can't. 22:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, so Avenger's socks which have all been binned but not banned should be allowed to vote? CorruptUser (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @David Gerard: If you wanna pull some election rigging, we could just throw out all the ballots with AvengerOfThe BoN as #1. ;) 05:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this initiative. Please 06:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the Reverend, it's kind of like how a convicted child rapist could theoretically run for POTUS from prison, but wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. In the highly unlikely event someone like this wins, well, User:MarcusCicero was a mod, and the wiki (unfortunately) did not melt down. There's no need to fix what isn't broken. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sysoprevoked, even though I've reformed. Too passive to edit in mainspace, though. User:BootmiiUser talk:Bootmii(Nomic) 04:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if I'm applying a consistent moral standard, I think felons should be able to vote and run for office, so there's nothing wrong with a few pbfreespaces' being present on a moderator election, especially if the campaign page makes it clear that basically no one likes him. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A certain sysop-revoked, self-nominated troll "won" the moderater election, coming in first place by ballot stuffing. There's a reason people become sysop-revoked and it's not so they can cheat at getting elected. Future election rules need serious rethinking to at least weed out sysop-revoke candidates. Bongolian (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Bongolian: The alternative is to just prevent ballot stuffing. 01:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, @FuzzyCatPotato, what method do you propose to prevent ballot stuffing in future? AoB was rather blatant in the stuffing, one could conceive of a less-blatant stuffing (different times, more randomized voting patterns). Bongolian (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose banning sysoprevoked editors from running. If they want to rub, they should darn well be able to do so. If they aren't good, they won't won, will they? (Speaking from personal experience) 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides, how else can sysoprevoked trolls regain their sysop status except by hacking the vote? Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "rub"[sic]- 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha I didn't see that typo. Yeah, but you basically are rubbing because you stand little or no chance of winning. I basically knew I wouldn't get elected. The primary reason I ran is because I wanted to draw away votes from the mainstays in order to allow other newer people in. And look, now we have DiamondDisc and Bongolian in there, two mods who I actually have a decent amount of respect for. Let's keep it up. 03:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Increase minimum total edit count requirements
Suggested by RBP: Raise the lower limit on edits for eligibility from 75 edits to, say, 300 edits.
 * I support, unless the below suggestion proves possible. The vast majority of the active RW community has over 300 edits. 4 of 5 of the questionable ballots wouldn't have counted -- only Nutty Roux's. 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support. Bongolian (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support.- 04:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose unless a recent activity filter is not feasible. Getting 300 edit within a roughly 3 month window would be likely to disenfranchise newly registered editors. They would have to edit about upwards of 100 times a month to qualify and it would simply raise a onetime effort somewhat, meaning a greater effort required, but dormant socks could still be used. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose as a long-term lurker (registered since 2011) who was sysop at one point who might not have 300 edits. User:BootmiiUser talk:Bootmii(Nomic) 02:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Wombat Call me extremely biased from my own viewpoint, but... I can pull off 300 edits in a day. I don't see what would be keeping people who claim genuine dedication from reaching that number easily over weeks, let alone months. Also, let me assure you that most actual new users won't even have an idea about how the elections work, nor a horse in the race, et cetera, if they've not even gotten to 300 edits. The idea that actual new users would come and complain to high heaven about the oppressive nature of them having to had reached 300 edits before they can vote on a site they just showed up to is a non-issue; an invented problem scenario that would never actually occur (though, I can guarantee that the trolls operating certain socks might complain loudly). However, the acute fact that trolls are currently using socks to stuff ballots is a legitimate complaint and a real issue. This needs to be prevented by the least stupid and authoritarian means possible; raised edit count being the likely best option. What's the alternative — getting CheckUser and revealing the IP's of everyone who voted (or any such related lunacy)? Let's be sensible here — and that includes being proactive against the trolls. 300 edits is a patently low number in the context of how often we have elections. Beside, the argument that "but but but an edit limit means that you'd have to have usefully invested time and energy on the site to be able to determine its direction!" <- Yeah, it does. The basic idea is to limit who can vote. Hello? The voting process is being threatened. Let's not sit on our hands. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Bootmii So, what's been keeping you (from reaching the very low threshold of 300 edits)? It's a legitimate question — if you've been registered since 2011, you'd almost have to be fighting not to reach 300 edits at this point. No offense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @The Rev. The ease with which a dedicated socker can put in a onetime effort to qualify a sock account and then have it laying dormant until election time rolls around is why I think a lifetime edit count is less likely to be effectual. Instead it's likely to bar recently registered editors who aren't particularly active. As for lurkers like Bootmii, they could easily qualify if they are active and if they aren't why should they care who the mods are, since the role of mods is to put a break on problematic, active editors? ScepticWombat (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose. Let the people be the judge of what is and isn't an active, quality contributor. 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, PBF3, what exactly do you mean and how do you measure/evaluate what "the people"(?!?) judge? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that PB is against this should alert those voting oppose to the obvious existence of virtues in voting support. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Poisoning the well, Reverend. Arguments should be judged based on their merit, not who's arguing them. You should know that. There shouldn't be new requirements just to keep the 'lowly masses' from running. That's contrary to the mobocracy we have here. 18:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pb3 is correct, here. Pb3 has also offered no real solutions whatsoever and is more interested poking holes in other ideas. 19:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it was more apparent that I meant what I wrote to PB as more of a "joke-reply" than as any actual type of argument (considering I'm not really making one in my reply). Note also that I provide actual arguments in my actual reply to Wombat (above). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support CorruptUser (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support.-Blue Eyes White Dragon (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So, what's the outcome of the vote (so far)? 5 for and 3 against? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support this. We've seen too many never-really-active-but-all-of-a-sudden-"interested" accounts come along and vote last year. 75 edits is just too little to be any indicator of being an active user, IMO.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Increase in-year edit count requirements
Limit voting to users with 50+ edits in the past year. (If a user edits once per week, they'll be eligible.) Rigging is possible, but it takes dedication and lots of easily visible activity.

It's not yet clear whether this is easy, but it's probably possible. 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support if reasonably easy to implement. Bongolian (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A year is a long time. The previous three months would be more relevant.  12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If feasible, I consider this the best criterion, as any socker would have to continuously keep his socks active. By contrast, a total edit count would simply require a onetime effort. A recent activity criterion also has the advantage of not penalising recent, but quite active editors from voting. The time set for the edits should follow the seniority criterion for enfranchisement, i.e. currently three months. That way we don't end up disenfranchising ordinary, but recently registered editors, who would have the vote under the current rules, in order to clamp down on socks. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose as a long-term lurker (since 2011) and an irregular editor. No way I'll have 50 edits a year. User:BootmiiUser talk:Bootmii(Nomic) 02:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose. Let the people be the judge of what is and isn't an active, quality contributor. 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, PBF3, you've now rejected both proposals, so any other ideas or don't you think this is a problem that needs to be or can be fairly addressed? I.e. do you think it's not a problem in the first place? That we just have to live with the potential for ballot stuffing? Or simply that we're addressing it in the wrong way in these specific proposals? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So does PBF3 opposes any changes to the voting rules because s/he likes the (initial) outcome of the previous election? It sounds like complicity. Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not get conspiratorial here. 19:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. As you said, let's hear some solutions rather than just shooting down other's ideas from PBF3. Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose voting changes, I just haven't seen any proposals I like and to be quite honest I can't think of any change that couldn't be gamed in some way. Plus, there's no need for conspiracies, as FCP said: I didn't win the election. Indeed Avenger would've been the only one to gain, and I hate him! I didn't vote for him at all, by the way. I'm standing on principle here.
 * If you're really insistent on me offering some kind of solution (as if I'm somehow obligated to do so), I'd change it so only sysops could vote, and all candidates who exceed a certain threshold of votes (something like 2% of sysops, which would be ~15 people) would be elected. Every single vote would count equally, with a simple limit on how many candidates you can vote for. Btw does someone know if the system I'm describing has a name? That's what I think would reduce troll candidates. 21:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons I give under the headline above this one (in my block of text to the Wombat), I generally support the idea that the current edit threshold of "75 lifetime edits" is too low for any account, and that that limit should be raised. Count me as weighing against the oppose votes here as well, in other words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Conscript ballot checkers
Only two people generated the official OpenSTV results: and I. Both of us are candidates for the moderator elections. This is a clear conflict of interest.

Nobody has volunteered to help check ballots for the past three elections.

The solution: pick a few active users and force them (as much as anonymous individuals on the internet can) to check the ballots -- or at least be present in the relevant email chain. 01:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even aware that there was a need for volunteer ballot checkers. A call for volunteers (who are not running for office) could be followed by active selection of people and giving them the chance to decline. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd volunteer happily but the STV system we use completely baffles me. 85.234.92.172 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (Sophie)
 * I chose not to volunteer this time around because I knew I would be very busy at work, grading 12 reports, teaching two whole-day courses and examining around 35 students this week. Next year (or late this year?), depending on timing and workload, I might volunteer. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(Technical)Attach IPs to votes, allow rejection for duplicate ip/known proxies(contingent on a valid explanation)
Not sure that this would do anything to help the case we had recently, and it could make things harder for TOR users, but given that people can step up and say "Yeah, I use TOR, and that's my vote", it's about the least harmful thing I can think of to inhibit intentionally malicious behavior. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to flip a little on this. No IP checking. People's identities shouldn't be bandied around. I'm opposed to the concept. It's invariably going to be abused by whoever's in power to ban whoever be a sock of whoever else, and that's not right. 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As with all these measures, they serve only to harm and impede the regular, honest users. For a troll, all you have to do is use a different proxy IP per ballot stuffing sock. Bad, bad idea. Update: Though, I suppose that if the IP's were collected on a technichal layer that never reached even the eyes of the board members, was converted into arbitrary numbers, and then those arbitrary numbers were filtered for duplicates before the STV data was even complied, that'd be fine. But starting to keep IP information is a CP-type concept, a legal liability, will not stop even semi-dedicated trolls, et cetera. The solution for all this is to simply raise the edit limit from today's near-nil to a mere very low amount (see above). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I won the election and now the antizionist cabal is taking what is mine from me!
As you might know there were recently moderator elections here. Now I thought that by going to the voting booth, I might get some justice for the abuse Gerard and his ilk have heaped on me in the past, culminating in my binning and the subsequent binning of every other account that dared to question the hardcore antizionist consensus here. As a matter of fact, I won the elections resoundingly. But the powers that be cannot allow even one moderator who would be in favor of Israel, even if said moderator had pledged to end ideological bans during the campaign. So instead of the real results (as follows)

Avengerofthe BoN (Mod) Bongolian (Mod) David Gerard (Mod) FuzzyCatPotato (Mod) Weaseloid (Mod) Reverend Black Percy (Mod).

The public is now to accept manipulated ballots and manipulated votes all for the purpose of making it seem as if nobody voted for me to deprive me of what is rightfully mine. You cannot in good conscience denounce Trump (who did not win) and then acquiesce to this outrageous injustice that deprives me of my clear right to fill the post to which I was elected. I demand justice now! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't be continuing on this site. Saying who voted for whom is massively anti-democratic. Then getting people to vote on two sets of results is bizarre. How can you expect anyone to not have a conflict of interest with that vote? What is wrong with this site? Pfffft (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The "winner" of the election cried that he won and it just it isn't fair. Doesn't this remind you of anyone famous? Don't allow this Putinesque grab for power on RW. AoB stuffed the ballots. That shouldn't be allowed and should be punished. AoB is using "antizionism" as a smokescreen. Bongolian (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@AOTB: As you'll note, "the antizionist cabal" put the issue of apparent sockpuppeteering to a vote. If you truly won the election, then surely you should have enough support to win this secondary vote? 20:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know that these are socks? Maybe they just all know each other and decided to vote the same way in protest of something. Not unlike the national US election. Is that illegal here? Pfffft (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * E.Wig and Nutty Roux are known to be the same people, which is what spurred the discussion of sockpuppets. Appears incorrect -- E.Wig is TK. Apologies, was misinformed. If E.Wig is TK, then he should have stopped editing in 2010.
 * These ballots were cast at almost the same time at the very beginning of the voting period, which would suggest a very coordinated protest that RationalWiki has never seen before. It's possible that the other ballots are indeed other people. If so, given their interest in RationalWiki's moderator election, these coordinated but independent voters should surely show up to participate in this secondary vote, correct? 21:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Are known"? Like, really? This is a skeptical website, and this is the answer you give? Who knows and how? Are people not allowed to protest vote? Is this really the process outlined on this site? Pfffft (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no rules against coordinately choosing the worst candidates in an effort to undermine RationalWiki, no. You'll note that I have not struck these ballots, but asked other users to make their own decisions. Surely you will add your vote. 21:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a new user-ish, stalking for some time. I'm not even a sysop and the page tells me I have to have sysop right to edit the page. So, no. :( Pfffft (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The elections are rigged now ? First Levi goes crazy then people start making conspiracy theories. I get the sarcasm in the title, but what is happening here ? Diacelium (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just Avengerofthe BoN doing his thing. 21:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are reasons to suspect ballot stuffing which are currently being debated in public on the results page in terms of which editors consider this to be an example of ballot stuffing and if so, what the consequences should be. It's rather bizarre to see AotB going haywire with his "the public has spoken"-spiel when there is a public debate currently going on whether that's actually what happened. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is getting more and more insane. I won the election fair and square. I did not make the rules, but I won according to the rules. Now the (user)names of some of those who dared voting for satan Avenger are made public and their vote is denied and I have to win another vote just so the votes for me are counted? This is beyond insanity. Clearly the same people who ban any suspected Zionist on sight now want to take away from me what should have been mine after a secret vote for moderator. Instead the ballot is made public, certain ballots are denied and there is even treasonous talk of denying "some people" the franchise. What's next? Poll taxes? Literacy tests? Grandfather clauses? All I want is a defense against the cabal that will bin and ban on ideological grounds. I want to make this wiki the forum for open debate it once was, not a banana republic filled with yes-(wo)men. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * God. Do you do anything but concern troll? 19:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rig elections. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * AoB, you're not going to win this one; just give up. You're going to get perma-banned from this behavior. Bongolian (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Voters
Where does the information about who is allowed to vote in moderator elections now sit? It's not on any of the pages linked above, & really should be available in the interests of transparency. 11:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Found it: RationalWiki:Eligible users. Will transclude. 17:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but that doesn't say a thing about moderator elections.
 * Can blocked users vote? 22:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a damn clue. Can they, by the rules? It doesn't specify -- we should probably fix that. Can they, by the code of the extension? Ask David Gerard, I don't believe I have access. 22:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The rules should be clarified to say "mainspace edits" rather than just "edits", and the rules should probably be linked from announcements of future elections. Bongolian (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's just 75 or more edits to any namespace. 00:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could have a rule where, say, 90% of edits are in mainspace... 85.234.92.172 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * no thanks. 14:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should be any namespace.- 19:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When will the next moderator elections happen ?
How frequent are elections ? Diacelium (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Annual. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Technical issues
I have not looked into what restrictions on voters are possible or feasible using our cruddy hand-rolled Elections extension. I'll steel myself and dive into the awful code some time.

(If someone ever gets RW to 1.27, who won't be me, I strongly suggest using the election stuff actually supported by WMF.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, WMF doesn't use STV. See here. 22:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No self nominations (Fails)
Other suggested to change rule 4 from "There are no rules against self nomination." to "No self nominations, please." IMO: This would vastly cut down on the number of troll / dramatic candidates. Support. 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Volunteering for the role is completely valid. If you want to reduce troll candidates, a more reasonable approach would be disallowing those ineligible from voting from being a candidate, & maybe expanding the voting/candidate criteria to exclude users who are vandal-binned &/or sysop-revoked.  18:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, volunteering is valid. However, a candidate should have some support to run, otherwise they're wasting everyone's time. If they want to volunteer that badly, they can ask another sysop to nominate them. Candidates in sysop revoke have already demonstrated their pestiness and unsuitability for being a moderator. Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Forcing candidates to be nominated by somebody else just makes it more of a popularity contest than it already is. 00:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with the Weasel, keep self-nominations. Also, the most ridiculous candidates (à la Avenger) would be cut from the field if users under sanction are barred. Not to mention that the concern with "discussion" and lack of concern with trolling used by Fuzzy to argue against minimal protection of the campaign page sits rather oddly with a concern of not having troll/drama candidates. After all, mods will have to deal with these users once elected... ScepticWombat (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd keep self-nominations for reasons stated above.- 21:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Self-nomination is actually a genuinely democratic principle — the right to stand for election by your own volition is not just a tradition at RW, but "structually" it's a powerful participatory impetus. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True enough, I accepted the nomination largely because Avenger was already nominated. Bongolian (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like most users are in favor of allowing self-nominations. Can this discussion be closed? 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Self-nomination is a given. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No BON/un-autoconfirmed campaign comments (Fails)
Currently, others have acted to protect the campaigning page to "autoconfirmed". I think this is a bad move. I'm fine with trolling -- hell, moderators have to deal with trolling daily, so perhaps the candidates should also. I'm not fine with stifling discussion, because BON opinions should certainly matter to moderators: they're users and viewers too. Oppose. 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What are the experience with this and former elections as to the contents of BoN posts? As for the former, I've seen precious little that is not at least borderline trolling (trying to start a flaming row, rather than discussion) and/or has been said (and more eloquently) by autoconfirmed users. And I'm only considering the actual campaign page so there'll still beh plenty of fora here in which BoNs and other non autoconfirmed users can help with constructive criticism. The only weighty argument in favour of allowing it, I think, would be to use it as a sort of litmus test to see how candidates deal with trolling. It's not a cardinal issue for me, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While it's always a question of situational-basis judgement, protection should basically only ever be used to put the kibosh on ongoing vandalism or edit warring, with a conditional clause for use during total high-traffic derailment of a page. General articles and respective talkpages can be pre-emptively protected with "probable cause" if a seasoned sysop's spidey sense is tingling (e.g., as a reaction to Mikemikev announcing the start of a planned week-long soapboxing at the racialism talk page), but generally, the very functional basis of RW is that editing is open. Any potential vandalism is always easily revertible, and more importantly, we're not CP. Let none say that we outlaw dissent. Let all know that we vigilantly surpress dicky edit practices. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fair. 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No BON/un-autoconfirmed nominations (Passes)
Currently, others have acted to protect the nominations page to "autoconfirmed", so that only relatively-experienced registered users (in time and edits) could nominate candidates. IMO, again: This vastly cuts down on the number of troll / dramatic candidates. Support. 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with BoNs per se (we have at least one who does a good job, and has also been nominated for mod, ), but BoNs should at least be sysops to comment. Otherwise, sock puppets could cause undue influence on campaigning. Sysop is not that high a bar to meet if they care that much about the election. Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 142 is not a BoN. That's a registered account (which looks like a BoN). 76.5.20.117 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Bongolian (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC) I believe that that …142 was a long-time BoN prior to registering though. Bongolian (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This could use more comments. If we keep self-nominations, should we keep BON nominations? 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this measure. 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that because you want sock puppets to win? Bongolian (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, I reread the proposal and now I support it. Sorry. 02:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Autoconfirm-protecting the nominations page doesn't seem likely to deter any genuine candidates. 18:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

FPTP (Fails)
The election method used during the recent moderator election was STV. This method is favored by leftists and right-wingers especially because it enables a highly motivated minority to get their viewpoints into an elected body. But this is not the right method for Rationalwiki moderator elections. The goal of moderator elections is to find moderators who are judged to be fair and experienced, not to get a variety of ideologies (and hopefully the mods' ideologies won't figure into their moderator activities anyway). An election method with powerful "first pick" votes allows a small faction (or a few socks) to impose a moderator that may be disruptive or harmful to the community. It's hard to say how people would have voted if the method had been FPTP (vote yes or no on each candidate, the ones with the most yes votes win), but under FPTP a small faction would have to reach a number of votes for their fringe candidate greater than the least popular winner, without the leverage of "first pick" votes overriding every other vote. Also, such a faction would have to predict in advance who NOT to vote for (the least popular winners) making election skewing or fraud harder. Selecting quality beurocrats is not like voting for a European parliament. I recommend changing the voting method for future moderator elections to FPTP. Weorthe (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FPTP is an abomination, and here's why:
 * Nobody should be using it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No it's not an abomination. Different voting systems measure public will differently and produce different outcomes.  Neither you nor your Youtube video addressed the points I made above.  Voting up or down on each candidate is still a multiple winner system and will not encourage partisanship or minority rule. Weorthe (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FPTP is mathematically idiotic. You'll need equations to get past that fact, not sophistry. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support STV. I think it's more likely to eliminate extremists. This past election was for a moderator not an extremist afterall. That being said, the problem with the election was not the voting method per se, but the ease with which it was hacked. Bongolian (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed — but don't underestimate the God-awfulness of FPTP. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh, someone is wrong on the Internet. FPTP does the opposite of enabling extremists. When you can vote for one candidate it results in a 2 party system that competes for the ideological middle.  When you can select X candidates from a field it elects the most popular candidates excluding the fringe ones.  A motivated minority can't force their person in because they don't have the leverage of powerful first draft picks.  That's bad for the Lib Dems in England but would be good for electing Rationalwiki functionaries.  But nevermind, us good progressives "know" FPTP is bad because we've seen a CP Gray video.Weorthe (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone is, indeed. And since you mention both England and CGP Grey...
 * ...let's take a look at why the UK election results were the worst in history.    (Psst! It's all FPTP's fault!)     Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...let's take a look at why the UK election results were the worst in history.    (Psst! It's all FPTP's fault!)     Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...let's take a look at why the UK election results were the worst in history.    (Psst! It's all FPTP's fault!)     Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

FPTP cannot work for our elections. FPTP can only work in single-member districts, because it gives the election to the plurality winner. Both elections elect multiple members -- they are multi-member districts. STV is the most FPTP-like multi-member district method. 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, towns use it all over to elect councils. The key is you can vote for everyone you like. Weorthe (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Last beating of the horse - if the votes in the recent election were counted as equally weighted votes, Avenger would have been a distant loser. You'd need a LOT of socks to get an unpopular candidate through. Weorthe (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1: If you're using FPTP to elect multiple members, then STV is simply mathematically preferable. In multiple-person FPTP, votes can be wasted on over-popular winners. In STV, this never occurs.
 * 2: That's simply incorrect. By initial vote, the winners would be: David Gerard (10), FuzzyCatPotato (10), Reverend Black Percy (9), Avengerofthe BoN (9), Weaseloid (4), and Applesauce (2). 19:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weorthe said "if the votes in the recent election were counted as equally weighted votes", suggesting he meant all the votes that were cast, not just all first choice votes. Either way, I don't think recounting votes according to a different system will be a useful or conclusive exercise, since voters made their choices based on an STV system.  I also find it unlikely that anyone at RW's going to want to build a whole new voting extension from scratch.  19:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Debating a vote counting system does not address the problem of the previous vote. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)