RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive13

Summa Atheologica
Summa here. I currently have the coop and mod noticeboard on my watchlist, and have had them there since before I even considered running. I have proposed things that turned out to be for the best before anyone else did (such as the rangeblock on Morris and the Ataturk box AFD) and, to the best of my knowledge, I was the first to coop UT, who turned out to be a menace and was not finally banned until several months later. I have made pages here, expanded others, and I believe contributed to the wiki. I can confidently claim that nobody here despises me.

As mod, I swear:
 * To comb the recent changes and new user logs daily.
 * To work with other mods and users to reach beneficial conclusions.
 * To continue to contribute to this wiki.
 * To be an outspoken force for atheism and liberalism.
 * To terrify trollish actors.
 * To take up the learning of coding so that, if I should be needed, to serve as a tech.

Sirius


VOTE SIRIUS 2020!

VOTE SIRIUS 2020!

VOTE SIRIUS 2020!

Jokes aside, here's my campaign plan. In the past year, we've seen a lot of things happen and seen our systems get stretched up to their limits. Just after the previous election, we had to enact our first range block because of a serial troll choosing to make the wiki his shitbed for a few weeks. Only a mere few months later, the primary season got into swing which caused the resignation of some of our elected moderators, which was resolved thankfully peacefully. Similarly it has become obvious that a moderator had a somewhat personal vendetta against another user, which resulted in conflicts, most of which only got resolved recently. Finally, for a good several months we had to deal with a user who took it upon himself to push his content onto the wiki no matter what, to the point where he fell into his own sword in what feels like it only ended a few weeks ago, caused prolific members to LANCB, as well as another elected mod to resign. We also reformed our tech process after it became apparent that techs had very little oversight and yet somehow had more power than moderators and we had to deal with the fact that another tech had admitted to using IP data to enact blocks on another user.

And this is without getting into incidents like finally getting a block on nobs to stick for his bigoted behavior, even if only temporary. We also reformed our blocking policy to prevent Ken DeMyer using our site to SEO boost Conservapedia with his bullshit homophobic and religious rethoric to finally explicitly take a stance against this stuff (something which had been informally done for quite a while, but due to DeMyers prolificness caused him to get a block).

So what do I bring to the table then? Well, a large part of all the issues I mentioned previously were likely cultivated by what is something I would say an old-school method of moderation. Namely, the idea that being laid back and just letting everyone sort it out on their own will naturally lead to the best conclusion. This in theory is a great idea, and when you're working with a small group of people, this generally is a method that works well. New ideas get synthesized into the rest of the group, the group adapts and change is enacted. Memes get passed on so to speak (why yes, I like Metal Gear, how'd you know). Unfortunately, when we look at the past year, we repeatedly see conflicts escalate to the point where ATIM and in extreme cases the Chicken Coop becomes a necessity. To say this situation makes things far more unpleasant for all parties involved isn't a stretch, as wild flailing happens until a result occurs. Often this stuff can be de-escalated by telling people to just calm the fuck down on a talkpage or protecting a page against an edit war between sysops for a little bit until things chill out, or by providing a plan to move forward that manages to satisfy both parties.

In another realm this can also sometimes manifests as us being unnecessarily hostile towards newbies, something which has been noted a few times (although often the people who make this point tend to point at the wrong examples). The resolution to this is similar to what I suggested before. Promoting talkpages to discuss issues people have with edits is something which we highly recommend, and one of the changes I wish to enact as a mod is a change to our anonymous editing header to notify users that if their edits end up reverted, they should take it to the talkpage and discuss their case with the editors in question.

In short, we need a slightly less passive attitude towards moderation. This is technically a part of the elected duties of mods, but as we've seen with the previous election, several mods tend to rarely take this approach. While out of respect, I won't name individual moderators, one thing that does become apparent is that last years moderation work got shouldered on a few mods, some of whom resigned due to being unable to handle the workload that should be equally shared between multiple mods.

That slightly less passive attitude is something I am willing to provide. At the same time, in keeping with the other caveat, I also promise to not excessively use my tools. If you have seen me attempt to mediate conflicts on the wiki before, you might have seen how I operate (mostly only between new users/BONs and established sysops, between sysops I tend to just flail until a mod shows up). Generally, I prefer page locks when it comes to mainspace edits, with blocks generally only being reserved in the event users break our blocking policy. I consider the coop to be a last resort, and ATIM fitting for small interpage conflicts, which do show up from time to time, but don't need the complete rigmarole of the public opinion to reach a conclusion.

So why vote for me then? Well, I hope I made my case on the limits our systems have been stretched to over the past years and the clear changes we need in attitude going forward. I without wanting to toot my own horn too much do genuinely believe I can be the change I want to see, and if you can find yourself in agreement, then consider voting for me.

Ace McWicked
I am very aware that I am somewhat of a polarising figure, what with my constant swearing and musky odours, but that said as a member of RW for 12 years now I have proved that I want the best for RW. I moderate when it matters and have brought some major issues to the floor, particularly around the community standards and blocking policy. I'm not for everyone I know but nonetheless I will continue with my reign of terror light moderation style — only getting involved when needed and asked. I'm not here as an enforcer, I am here to step in and help when asked. And if I fail to win any votes that's OK. I won't storm out. I can say with some pride that over 12 years I have never pulled a LANCB. Because I'm not a child and am an adult so I don't piss my pants and cry when something doesn't go my way (I will however get drunk and abusive but at least I come up with some quality insults).

CircularReasoning


Now that I have your attention... While I may have, at a time in the past, been deemed unfit for my mop due to some drama and general stupidity on my part two years ago (on the first month of editing on here), that is, well, in the past, and the idea that I haven't changed is fake news. I have proven myself to be a trustworthy editor, having started many articles, from Blue Planet Project to 2018 United States mail bombing attempts and, once I did earn back my mop, even blocked a few legitimate trolls myself, reverted unfunny wandalism, etc. More recently, I have also de-escalated edit wars on numerous occasions, from that one sad, strange, prudish, holier-than-thou editor who took it upon themselves to lecture us on how disgusting and evil we are for not agreeing with their seemingly good-faith-but-not-very-good-quality edits 100% on a few of our less-than-well-written articles on difficult topics involving the sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons to breaking up an edit-war between a persistent little BoN and a fellow janitor sysop.

But what, may you ask, will I bring to our big, beautiful site as a moderator? Well, I trust that y'all know that over the past few months, the people of the internet haven't been sending their best. Sexist AoT's bringing drama! Little-Brained 🇰🇪's bringing shitposts! Lyin' Mikey's a racialist troll! Also, it has come to my attention that, especially in the case of Ken's recent atheophobic, homophobic, and racist fluff, we have been feeding the troll by replying to their threads to try and dismantle the logic of people who live in a complete alternate reality altogether. In such cases, I believe in a more sensible approach: '''Less replying to trolls, more using methods like, , and this, and more oversighting of harassment, highly offensive comments on people's talk pages, and legal threats. And, if necessary, trying them in the Coop and/or using our largely defensive weapons of banhammer and largely defensive weapons of vandalbin. If I see any users with inappropriate or offensive usernames, I shall use my largely defensive weapon of renamingness to rename them to something hilarious. Wanna see that troll whose name is something transphobic, racist, or insulting to one or more of our editors renamed to "CircularReasoning is a good moderator and has just renamed you in order to intimidate and harass" or something? Then '''VOTE CIRCULARREASONING 2020! LET'S MAKE RATIONALWIKI GREAT AGAIN! IT'LL BE BIGLY, YUUGELY BEAUTIFUL!'''

Goat bless.

-- Goatspeed. 03:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Bongolian
I would regard my major achievement this past year as bringing forth the idea that civility should apply to interactions between fellow-sysops. I would like to thank our former moderator User:LeftyGreenMario, who was in large part responsible for getting this codified into the revised RationalWiki:Community Standards. I have been a sysop since 2014, and a moderator since 2017, so you know what you're getting. I'm not perfect, but I try to admit when I'm wrong.

RWRW
Hi all. I will again throw my hat into the ring to serve another year as moderator. I remain committed to being fair-minded and reasonable when dealing with disputes. I will stand largely on the same promises that I have made in the last 2 elections: remain active, oppose ideological blocks and remain keep my cool (spending much of the last year working in a job with high amounts of customer service will help considerably in the latter).

With regards to my views on blocking, I am still opposed to blocks made purely on ideological grounds. I’m not opposed to all blocks though. I ultimately voted to ban Ken and Raven due to my belief that it was the only way to bring an end to the disputes and arguments. Going forward I will continue to oppose blocks except in situations where I feel nothing more can be done to keep the peace.

On top of that, several people have told me they want me to take a more active role in disputes. I actually believe that 2021 will be a more peaceful year than 2020 (with certain problem users no longer active and the tension from the Presidential election in the past). That said, I can see why people would want to see the moderators behave more proactively. So, I won’t hesitate to mod-lock pages hit by edit wars or scold anyone who I think has behaved inappropriately.

Anyways, that’s what I have to say. I commend this statement to the House. --RWRW (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Spud
Well, it's been a hell of a year, hasn't it? And I'm just talking about what happened on RationalWiki. I'll be honest, there were times in the summer when I thought about jacking it all in. But I decided to stick with it because I remembered that we'd had difficult times before. We've had users who were a threat to the site, and plenty more who imagined they were, We've had users try to bring RationalWiki down from the inside. They've all failed. They've all gone. And the wiki I love lives on.

As you probably know, I've been here for a while now. A case could probably be made for me being the last of the Old Guard or the first of the New Guard, if anybody could be arsed to waste their time doing that. I created my account on 13 September 2011 and I've made damn near one edit every single day since then. Even though I was left without any access to the internet for much of April after my computer stopped working, I've managed to stay very active this year. In spite of what I said earlier about this having been a hell of a year, my experience on RationalWiki has been an overwhelmingly positive one and remarkably free of drama. I'd say that's because I'm not easily offended, I know when to pick my battles and when to walk away. Really, the only dramas that have involved me have been the ones that have involved just about everybody. I do genuinely believe that RationalWiki has made me a better person. Back in 2011, I wouldn't have recognized a logical fallacy if one of them had bitten me on the bum. I've always been liberal by inclination but it's been RationalWiki that has made me determined to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem when it comes to facing racism, sexism, homophocia, trnsphobia and over forms of bigotry. And, of course, the RationalWiki community was there for me when I twice faced family bereavement. I will always be grateful to you for that.

I've been a moderator now since summer 2017. You saw fit to elect me twice since then. And that's another experience that I've found overwhelmingly positive. I believe I've worked well with the other moderators and don't see any reason why I shouldn't work equally well with whoever else gets elected this time.

If I am reelected, I intend to check on this wiki at least twice a day, to always check the All Things in Moderation page, weigh in on the issues of the day and generally stay active within the community. Whenever possible, I will give friendly advice to those who ask for it and those who don't. I will try to politely point out what potential problem users are doing wrong before they become problem users. That may involve telling them that RationalWiki isn't the right place for them. I can't be here 24/7. I do have a life, you know. Not much of a life, admittedly, but a life nevertheless. And my time zone does mean that some of the worst drama is likely to take place while I'm asleep. But I'm happy to dedicate a good deal of my free time to making sure that RationalWiki is ticking over nicely. I also plan to restart my stalled translations Esperanto, French and Spanish translations projects. I hope to translate at least six articles a year. Like I said before, I'll take requests.

And id I'm not reelected... Well, it's been a good two and a half years and I have absolutely no regrets about it. And I'll do all of the things I said above anyway. That's apart from checking the All Things in Moderation page every day, although if anybody there wants to ping me to ask my opinion, I'll gladly go there and give it. Spud (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ariel31459
I came to this wiki about four years ago and after about a year I wrote an article about racism and Christopher gave me a mop. After getting involved in a few controversial articles, I learned that no one should come here to "straighten people out" as some new users sometimes claim to want to do. My objective is to be of assistance to new users, encourage editors who are having problems, and to offer opinions and settle disputes by asking questions and making suggestions. Since the mob rules here, I have noticed that the moderators have very little authority and in some ways must be more constrained in their actions than sysops. Moderators shouldn't pick fights or take sides as moppets tend to do unless it is as one of the crowd when voting as a member of the electorate.

I have endorsed most of the current candidates and would be willing to vote for any of the current moderators. I imagine that my activities on this wiki will only change in so far as I am asked to get involved in conflict resolution. I have never demoted any user since becoming a sysops and therefore have no close connections to other users on this wiki. For some time now, since the last election in fact, I have made an effort to be welcoming to new users whom other users may have slighted in some small way. I feel it is important to explain to newcomers what they must expect if they want to contribute to this wiki. I made a list of promises last year when I unsuccessfully ran for moderator, the last of which was " to keep the promises even if I do not succeed in the election." Looking back now, I believe I made a solid effort to do so. I reiterate that promise here.

So, why am I running if I am happy with the current slates of old and newly proposed moderators? It was an honor to be asked to run, of course. It is not reasonable to expect to be able to eliminate discord, animosity, invective and incivility in a platform like this one. But I honor the attempt. I support Bongolian's movement toward a more civil collaboration wiki-wide, and I have offered a proposal concerning the use of pejoratives in main-space articles. Also, earlier this year, I wrote an article for our main-space. There are some articles in this wiki that could use considerable improvement, revision, or even replacement. But I am not here to attempt such a program. That's what the mob is supposed to do. As a member, I will try to do more. Questions are always welcome.

Rockford the Roe
When I was 15, I was obsessed with people like Christine Weston Chandler, JustinRPG, and Terry A. Davis. So naturally, I wounded up creating an account on a website called "Kiwi Farms" where these people were discussed. Within the "community watch" subforum, it contained several targets of ridicule like "Antifa", "Reddit's transgender community", "Kekistan" and "/pol/". All of those subjects I were way knowledgeable about in a twisted mentality, until a thread titled "RationalWiki: Whiny hugbox for spergs and a clusterfuck of neverending drama on a rapidly declining website." was bumped to the top. I had no idea what this was about besides a few reddit links here and there, so I checked the thread. What surprised me was people like LGM, GrammarCommunist, Duce and so many others actually made better cases for themselves than the hecklers on the forum, something I never thought about. I then concluded that the labeling of this site as a "lowcow farm" was all because of their political beliefs, so I decided to look on the site on my own just to get my own impression. As it turned out, I was correct and I found an amazing resource to debunk authoritarian arguments, "scientific bigotry" and introduced me to yet another wiki that has provided me unintentional amusement. I quickly learned that this website was a target for trolling, so I created my account to hide my IP address out of fears of DDoSing, and undid those vandals. Quite a few months later, Oxy labeled me as trusworthy enough for the privilege of being a sysop and since then, I had my eyes staring on Special:RecentChanges and observe.

I felt like I was actually helping society for the good during the Trump era knowing how journalists rely on us to refute misinformation and how the site is strong enough to change minds, including mine. RationalWiki has helped me become the man I am today, and it's time for me to help pass the torch to the next generation.

As a moderator, I have several ideas for improving the site such as:


 * Assisting in updating MediaWiki to make the site more available to mobile users
 * Diversifying the age and personal belief groups of the team
 * Maintaining our credibility
 * Focusing less on talk page drama and trolling
 * Deer-Goat unity
 * Continuing to help others think for themselves

I understand that I haven't been editing mainspace articles often as I should, or not diving into the community boards. I feel like that this will become a motivator for me to do so and a perfect opportunity to learn about server administration before I get into college. I'd like to request to all of the voters to keep me and my interests in the site in mind. Thank you. Rockford the Roe (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hastur, the Magnificent
I am what you may call a RationalWiki patriot. I believe in RationalWiki's mission. I see it as a useful resource for the general public, and I believe its mission furthers the dialectic in the right direction. I see RationalWiki's culture as interesting and conducive towards healthy goals such as education and humor. I have been a member of this website since 2011. My tenure has not been uncontroversial. When I first arrived I was an uncouth, barely civilized individual (generously speaking). I admired this site. I admired its user base. Nevertheless, I saw some flaws in its operation. And since I didn't have much else going on back then I put in a certain amount of effort to try and correct said flaws. I sought to protect bullied users such as Maratrean and even Proxima Centauri. I believed we should be more inclusive and kind towards such good faith users. Indeed, I spent a good amount of time defending other editors against bullying. That was my goal, to make sure we remained civilized towards one another. And while I doubt I had much to do with it, we've moved very close to this goal. Granted there is still some bullying going on. I had to stump for Godless Raven, an editor whose mere arrival to the site caused much controversy. Several other users vowed to drive him off. This was perceived as controversial, that I would defend him. I stand by my actions. Godless Raven can be overwhelmed by his emotions but this doesn't set him apart from the rest of the user base. I should hope that none question my good faith when I declare him to have been an earnest and productive editor, victim to not only his own passions but to a toxic welcoming. I have no choice but to mention Godless Raven as many editors here are only capable of perceiving me in relation to him. But what can I say, I have always defended editors who were unfairly attacked. This has been consistent for 9 years. So yes, if elected moderator, I am willing to defend unpopular users and try to understand their side of things. I am guilty of believing in fairness and giving the benefit of the doubt. I am sure some see that as a flaw but I present as a strength. I am a prolific patroller, and I am very good about NOT reverting first and asking questions later. It is better to encourage new good faith editors than to suppress them. I strive to leave edit summaries and to give constructive advice. I hate to say it, but the current crop of moderators fails at this. When it comes to mainspace, I am unabashedly a deletionist. I support depth over breadth, and I feel it is important to be vigilant against the bloat wikis are inherently vulnerable to. I have made my opinions known about this. When it comes to talkspace, I believe in free discourse. Removing talk page material has long been frowned upon in our history and I support this idea. We are RationalWiki, not Conservapedia. We do not censor or silence. We accept, even welcome dissent. Because we are not afraid. This wiki is meant to shine a light on the darkness, illuminating falsehoods for what they are. Banning users like Conservative is embarrassingly counterproductive towards that goal. Users who cannot handle idiotic and offensive talking points have made a strange choice of lair. RationalWiki has, since even before it was born, been about confronting and debunking bigotry and pseudoscience. If you can't handle that you are in the wrong place. I believe that I have been effective, in 2020, at mediating and moving this wiki in the right direction. As moderator, I would be even better suited to advance my goals for this website. Of course, I have two possible weaknesses. One, I know some users have expressed worry that I may be too busy with IRL business to tend to the wiki's needs. However I pledge that if elected, I will very attentive towards the site's needs. Two, I was very uncomfortable with the Oliver D. Smith/Dysk drama. I largely declined to participate. The whole thing made me queasy and I chose to take a step back. But if elected, I would choose differently. I merely made the decision that since I was not expected to demonstrate any responsibility as a member of the hoi poloi, that I should just do what is comfortable to me. If elected, I would choose differently. I have had the privilege of having multiple anti-endorsements before I even made my stump speech. They are... not especially substantive. As expected, naturally. I see myself as an effective mediator in preserving RationalWiki and the essential elements of its culture. That the enablers of a historically toxic editor disagree means little to me, nor should it. TL;DR if you vote for me, I will work to make sure RationalWiki stays great, for the reasons it's always been great-Hastur! (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Candidate questions
Ask your candidates questions here!
 * 1) For Summa Atheologica only. Do you think that the image on your home page make give the impression that you would not be able to moderate disputes involving sexism fairly? I know that that image is available on Wikimedia Commons. I'm not try raise issues of prudery here, but that people who are in positions of judgement (like moderator) should show impartiality. Bongolian (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would very much doubt that would be the case. It was there for months before anyone asked about it. I do not believe I have made sexist statements. To demonstrate that, this image is on the pages of Spud, Duce, and CircularReasoning,two of whom have been exemplary mods in the past without such issues. 19:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually did notice it months ago, but I saw no point in raising an issue about it then since it was in Wikimedia Commons. Bongolian (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Summa, how is employing a whataboutism with Spud, Duce, and CircularReasoning a demonstration that you have not made sexist statements? nobsSmile, and be friends.. 20:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Summa, I take issue with this your userpage not because of the image being on Wikimedia Commons or impacting your ability to act on cases related to sexism, but because of how front and center it is. In Duce, CRs and Spuds case, the image is part of their userbox, which in Duce and Spuds case is scrolling, which makes it take a bit to find and easily overlooked for anyone glancing at your screen for a second. In your case, it's a naked woman on the center of your page.
 * I would consider this to be highly inappropriate for people browsing this site at work on their off-hours, as this makes it not possible to visit your userpage without risking a complaint being filed and someone getting in trouble at HR. If you were just a random user, I'd probably not care, but since you are running for a mod position, this means that your userpage will receive more attention, which honestly I find concerning enough to consider anti-endorsing you. We shouldn't have people risk getting fired just for visiting a (possible) moderators page.
 * Anyone who has seen me will know that I am not a prude, but I would please like to ask you to consider changing it for the sake of your future role as a mod. Should you not get elected, feel free to change it back, but I think this is not appropriate for someone running for a public position here. 21:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm no prude either, far from it, but the image bothers me because it is right there with no warning and I was in my office when I visited the image and one of my staff came walking in just as I flicked off the page quickly. AceModerator 21:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will move in to a sub-page of my userspace where people are less likely to see it. 00:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did that and also put a collapse and a warning. 00:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * K, now I'm off to make my userboxen scrolling. That tower was designed in the early days of my account here, before I knew wiki-fu. -- Goatspeed. 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AceModerator 00:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Question for only: It's been two years since you wrote this essay Essay:Vandalizing Conservapedia, which is admittedly a long time ago on the internet. As you may be aware, there has been a general consensus on RW about not supporting or condoning vandalization of other wesbsites, particularly CP (it doesn't seem to be actual policy though). Do you have anything further to say about the essay? Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly explain. Since you just had to remind me that that POS even existed, I've just buried the turd. It was made by my younger, dumber self. I didn't have much sense back then, as evidenced by how I immediately assumed bad faith in the events leading up to the CowHouse v. Me Coop case. But I'm different now, as stated in my sales-pitch above. Please don't think badly of me for my past mistakes; people need to stop acting like there's no redemption when it comes to people saying stupid stuff. -- Goatspeed. 03:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Bongolian (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No questions for Ace?
Nothing about my sexual proclivities? Favourite intoxicant? innie or an outtie? Last chaos created? No one wants a picture of my art? Anyway, fuck you guys. You're getting some of my art... AceModerator 03:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)




 * LOL -- Goatspeed. 03:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep your day job. Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is so cursed... mother of Goat you're a monster -- Goatspeed. 08:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm considering changing to anti-endorsment. Someone who made that can't possibly be in a sound enough state of mind to act as a moderator.
 * Fucking degenerate. 10:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck you. It's art. AceModerator 20:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * i have question for you. how many governmental watch lists are you on? i assuming one of them from the evidence of your art. also, what medication do take to suppress your urge to feast on human flesh? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None. I have worked inside the parliament here in the past as well as for the national justice and law enforcement departments. I am an essential wheel in the making of this great democracy. I take about 8 different medications. AceModerator 21:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ace, the nails in your art actually reminded me of a idol that I saw in the open-air market of Kinshasa long ago. It was both frightening and mesmerizing, probably better then most museum-quality exemplars than one can see on the internet. The wooden upper-torso figure was densely embedded with rusty outward-pointing nails and razors over most of its maybe 15kg bulk. I immediately wanted to buy it and knew that I would forever regret not buying it, but the thought of even touching the sharp rusty metal in the tropics, let alone packing it properly and hauling it home, quickly over-rode that thought. Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is spectacular. AceModerator 06:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User since October 2019. Currently a sysop and tech.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) We share a lot of views on the role a mod should play in the current site climate, so this endorsement should surprise nobody.-Flandres (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Level headed, good tech, good candidate. 19:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. I like their campaign spiel. Shabi  DOO  21:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree! I've noticed that we do often seem to be prejudiced towards newcomers; I sometimes can't help but feel that we need to take a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and, unless a newbie is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, yes, it is important for mods to not tolerate such bigotry as was espoused by 🇰🇪, who thinks the cruel treatment of gays in countries ruled by Islamofascist theocracy (yes I called it that, please don't shoot me) is just another "sEtBaCk FoR tEh HoMoSeXuAl AgEnDa" and parrots Assfly's racist, incredibly insightful view that the Chinese caused COVID by not obeying their imaginary friend- and just wave it off as just more of Kenny Baby's belligerent, delusional homophobic/atheophobic rhetoric. -- Goatspeed. 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Thoughtful. Cool-headed.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) I think Sirius would be a good choice for moderator. He seems to be a clean collected fellow.Adam Warlock (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Am I even allowed to endorse people? Does anyone care if I do? Idk, but I do endorse this person. 10:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are allowed. There's no analysis on whether endorsements matter. Bongolian (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Despite initially being unimpressed with The Crow, my opinion later drastically changed for the better, based on his sticking up for a certain user, when he definitely didn't have to bother. Could well get my first choice vote. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems pleasant and at least somewhat competent. Twodots (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Anyone who claims Crow tin is level headed is either uninformed or lying. To quote the dutch person himself:    15:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Crowtin.""Crowtin." Wow. He is sitting there at Socdemwiki, following our mod campaigning despite dramatically claiming to be done with the site, plotting to anti-endorse everyone at the last second like a totally not pitiful diabolical mastermind thinking "Yes! I'll call him Crowtin! THE MODERN DAY GIORDANO BRUNO STRIKES AGAIN!" EDIT-my god, Crowtin was so bad he just removed it and is trying to pass it off as a typo.-Flandres (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Genuinely unsure if he compared me to Stephen Crowder or if this is an extended way of calling me a cretin. Also I never said I was anti-GMO (which is irrelevant to wiki stuff anyway). 17:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * should I temp block him since he just came back to insult people(many of whom he has a history of bothering? Enforced time out, just so he can cool off a bit.-Flandres (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a mod, best to defer to an existing one for that. 18:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just... sad. 18:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have taken bets that Raven's first act after returning from is second obvious lie of a "storming out of here and never coming back" was to anti-endorse a universally liked user. Yeay! Our couple months of joyous peace are over! Shabi  DOO  19:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They also voted "No" on every potential punishment for LT in the ongoing Mob v. Conservapedians Coop case. -- Goatspeed. 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * there is no one on his wiki it seems. maybe they are lonely AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User since April 2019. Currently a sysop. Would be a good new mod I think. 23:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorsements
 * I think it is high time we have more younger users on the Mod team, personally. It helps...keep things in perspective, hmhmhmhm... -Flandres (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! We need some more new blood, like Atheologica and I. -- Goatspeed. 03:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Worthy of a chance Shabi DOO  16:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Appears to believe that this is very important to include in mainspace-Hastur! (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Waited to see how this user would respond to the "Muslim children would grow up to be butchers" thing. Not happy that they're pushing to have it put back. 14:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Removed talkpage comment on Talk:Communism and blocked a BoN. Said comment was at worst an I thought it was RATIONALwiki comment, which we don't block over. This is a very basic part of our blocking policy to not do. 22:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Atheologica should've just used this collapse template I made instead, and/or replied with the good ol' template, IMHO. This is RationalWiki, not Conservapedia. -- Goatspeed.  19:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure words like "imbecilic shithub" are worth blocking over. 22:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Naw. It was just a bunch of drinkable junk. If we remove and block any time someone uses strong language to criticize our site, we'd amass quite a lengthy blocklist which would stifle criticism and discussion of subjects. To be clear, I don't think the user has much merit, but it wasn't worth blocking over. Blocking should be more of a last resort I'd say, not the greeting we use to people who are harsh on our pages. 22:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, one more appropriate action here could have been to edit the section header. 22:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) As others have pointed out, they've edit-warred to include highly problematic edits more than once. The prospects are not very good; I've changed my mind about this candidate. -- Goatspeed.  19:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Wtf Iwillprobablygetbanned (Reply) 10:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goat


 * 1) Not feeling it. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

<!--Ineligible. ===  === User since July 2020. Currently autopatrolled. Presumed ineligible due to account not being old enough and the insufficient amount of edits. if they can prove enough and early enough edits as a BoN before the creation of the account, the strike will be lifted. 00:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorsements
 * 1) LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) No idea who this is, claims to have edited as a BoN for a long time. AceModerator 21:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Having perused his user page and contributions, nothing in his history seems to recommend him to a mod position(in terms of skills displayed and whatnot). Also, having a userbox that seems to equate a certain user with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks...I now personal opinions should not affect my endorsement but I would be lying if I said that was not a factor.-Flandres (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Clearly ineligible. 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Too new - not elegible. Scream!! (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Account's not old enough. It is very hard to prove objectively that a BoN's edits were yours without compromising your own privacy. You know that one BoN I can't remember who seemed to be in lurrrve with the dreaded master-villain Illogicnnosuch who used to self-promote on the Saloon Bar? Remember how he/she/they/it once claimed to be a sysop here when they put another of their ridiculously-detailed lists of Logic-boy's silly antics on D's talk page, while pinging a bunch of sysops including moi? Methinks should maybe wait another year, and make us some more edits. -- Goatspeed.  03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Arguably ineligible. Bongolian (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Suspicious username. ~
 * Goat
 * 1) Who is this user? Shabi  DOO  21:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Unsure if egliglible? They claim to have edited as a BoN for ~1.5 years before registering, which makes their account too young but makes them technically old enough to run on that basis alone. Would like some existing mod input on this. 21:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eligibility should be addressed asap. Not only is the account not old enough, but so far they don't seem to have necessary amount of edits. It's also impossible to verify how much they edited as a BoN unless they're willing to identify which BoN it was. apparently has best understanding of the rules and bylaws of this Wiki, so maybe he would like to comment.  22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK - I'm putting the mod hat on now to ask this user to a) Advise what the BoN was and to then b) edit from that BoN on this page. Otherwise no dice. And even then I am wary. AceModerator 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that about a day has passed, and we have no reply from Iwillprobablygetbanned, what should we do about his little eligibility problem if he ends up just not responding at all?-Flandres (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Standard practice would be moving the nomination and acceptance under "ineligible" headline. I guess he could then appeal that there by proving he used to edit as an IP. I'm not sure how ineligible campaigning would normally be handled. 22:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Commander here. This happened before in RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations/Archive11. Just move it to an ineligible header and add to the "currently Autoconfirmed" that their account is too new as well as lacking the needed amount of edits until they can prove otherwise. 22:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved and struck them for now. has proven me to be wrong in similar actions previously. Please advise if this was wrong or premature.  00:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)-->

User since July 2014. Currently a sysop and moderator. shut the fuck raven i hope you get cancer and fucking die you're a goddamn rat [...] rot in your own piss and shit, you fucking troll 07:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Of course! Shabi  DOO  21:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) We have had our disagreements to be sure, but I won't say he was a bad mod because of it.-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Competent, provides decent perspectives, no complaints as a mod in general even if we disagree from time to time. 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely. Already an excellent and hard working mod. 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Always helpful. Strong recommend.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Duh. 23:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) yep. AceModerator 02:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Bongoloan boasts of civility between fellow sysops? What a joke. How about all your lies and smears you have in a doxxing page about a fellow sysop and loving person you have been asked to remove for years? nobsSmile, and be friends.. 18:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Bongoloan' thanks you for the anti-anti-endorsement. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that what civility is, smiling while you revert and block a fellow sysop for hanging an AfD tag? nobsAll Hail President Que-mala 20:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The block was irrelevant since you, the blockee, unblocked yourself. 2) It was a bad faith (intellectually dishonest) edit by yourself. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It was a little more intimidating since it was made by a Mod, and 2) it wasn't bad faith since the AfD was voted on. But your removal of the tag interfered in the voting. nobsAll Hail President Que-mala 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Part of the revert first and ask questions later crowd. Not posting this anti-endorsement so that they won't get elected it, rather so that they'll improve-Hastur! (talk)  06:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honest and civil criticism. I appreciate it. Bongolian (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Nah. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Is okay with Oxyaena telling me to kill myself (off-site), but somehow gets upset at stupid Conservapedia stuff (also off-site, but now somehow that counts). Incoherent.  15:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, that callous image and caption 🇰🇪 and LT's essay doesn't really help their case, IMHO. Also, LT's as toxic on here as Kenny was before the latter got banned for atheophobic and homophobic trolling a few weeks ago. Go back to your Socdemwiki already. -- Goatspeed. 23:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I imagine the REAL reason he wants LT acquitted is that "hitlist" came up in the "why should we ban this guy" discussion. GR has a vested interest in setting precedents for hitlists to not be permabanable, hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I never cared about the hitlist when I voted to ban GR. I cared about the weeks of shitstorm and the vitriol and the refusal to listen to reason or reach out to other users he'd formed a prejudice against. 23:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Looks like GR has become the next Aneris, but with different obsessions. -- Goatspeed. 23:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am impressed that GR left retirement and the exceptionally time-consuming wiki that GR created just to come back to RW so as to settle scores, stir up shit, and defend a Conservapedian troll. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What Bongolian think is ban worthy: a silly meme about heads on a wall, off-site. What Bongiloan thinks is cool and normal and merits no punishment at all because it's the low-oxygen supply mascot:
 * Goat
 * 1) Now Bongolian is once again, as in the AfD, actively engaged in voter suppression.   You'd think a qualified Moderator at a minimum should be familiar with Community Standards and the rules.  nobsHell to the Thief! 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's it like lacking any sort awareness or have any good qualities?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking from experience or from observation? nobsHell to the Thief! 00:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're the expert.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User since May 2008. Currently a sysop and moderator.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Ace is an outliar as moderator. There should be at least one. Did a decent job too.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) While I have my disagreements, I feel Ace is a good balance with more proactive candidates. 02:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Ace is the most rational person on RationalWiki. (even when he's pissed as a fart) Scream!! (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Everyone knows that he's abrasive. On some important matters that have come before the moderators, he's been correct and a valuable asset. Bongolian (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) A fan of his abrasive nature, causes one to think. But it's understandable why commie leftists have a hard time being forced to think. nobsSmile, and be friends.. 19:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) A traditional RationalWikian, and a necessary counterweight towards overly serious individuals who don't understand what this site is about-Hastur! (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Big fan of this guys attitude. Absolutely the right kind of person to moderate this hellish site. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Too inactive and a bit of a dick. — Oxyaena Harass  09:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Borderline transphobic.  15:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WTF? When have I ever been transphobic? AceModerator 22:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Goat
 * 1) I dunno really  Shabi  DOO  21:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Not a fan of his abrasive nature and habit of stirring the flames of some conflicts after they had seemingly started to wane. That said, he's on the right side of things most of the time, so not willing to go full anti-endorse here. 09:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) No anti-endorse, but no endorse either. Ace isn't a bad mod per se, I think he's fairly competent in fact, but he's a mixture of just a bit too inactive when it matters and too abrasive when he does show up, which tends to reignite conflicts (or in some cases redirected them to different subjects). 10:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to speak to this he's a mixture of just a bit too inactive when it matters I do travel a fair bit for work. Otherwise I am on here every day. AceModerator 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User since June 2017. Currently a sysop and moderator.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) When a bitter critic endorses you, it is one of the best endorsements possible. Be a bit more attentive though. 01:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes Shabi  DOO  02:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I have anti-endorsed RWRW in every previous election that he's run in. This past year however, I've seen him mature into a more active moderator and editor. Bongolian (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Has probably managed to surprise everyone who anti-endorsed him two years ago with how fair and level-headed he is. 09:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) I nominated RWRW because I think he's very level-headed, fair and genuinely seems to care for the site. Those criteria are also why I endorse him. 10:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Sure, I would say he could be more active, but he is not incompetent when he is active.-Flandres (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Sensible and not all that right-wing after all.19:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Ariel31459 (talk)
 * 8) Good mod, but I'd like to seem him be more active on the wiki. 20:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Making RationalWiki Great Again for a while now, good candidate. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) His non-mainstream political views have served as a great balance to our predominantly liberal and atheist/agnostic mods. Also, he's become very fair and level-headed, as others have already said. -- Goatspeed. 22:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Supports Brexit, which is irrational. 15:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and irrelevant to the duties of a mod AMassiveGay (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At one point in my life, I was a registered Liberal Democrat. Nothing I say or do now could ever be as irrational in comparison. --RWRW (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goat

User since October 2018. Currently a sysop.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Doesn't take shit personally and has a fun personality. Would be an unorthodox but good choice, I think. Would need to be much more active if elected though. 20:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) You know, CircularReasoning has actually impressed me quite a bit over a short amount of time.-Flandres (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Enjoys joke blocking sprees a bit too much, but he's demonstrated recently that he can handle serious business with a level head. 15:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) has not made enough of an impression here to get any sense of who they are. at least, ive seen the username pop on recent changes once in awhile, but not anywhere interacting with others, not where i would be looking. can they politely disagree o take criticism? no idea. no baggage either i guess. feel i'd need a bit more though AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm all for taking criticism, constructive or otherwise. I also (usually) have a fairly thick skin, if that's what you mean by "taking criticism". If anything, I'm used to other janitors correcting me when I make a mistake in page protection parameters/durations, or whacking me with a trout (like here, although in this case they didn't specifically use the trout template but you get the idea). -- Goatspeed. 05:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel like I hate this guy, but I can't remember why. Odd. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it because of that one time back when you were a tech (before the drama involving you, Oxy, the "edit filter" sysopbot and He-who-must-not-be-named that I was so blissfully unaware of at the time), when I joke-blocked you using a modified version of the "Congratulations you won a block" rationale, and still owe you a Galaxy Note9? Because joking aside, other than that I can't think of any reason, from what I remember. Just curious. -- Goatspeed. 07:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) Okay, I have no reason to think they are a problem user, or would be a bad mod...but their resume seems a bit light. I suppose my objections are somewhat similar to those made above by AMassiveGay.-Flandres (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User since September 2011. Currently a sysop and moderator.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) No brainer.-Flandres (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, worked well with this guy. AceModerator 02:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I dream about spending a romantic tropical vacation weekend with Spud Shabi  DOO  02:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Has been an excellent editor and moderator. Bongolian (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) All around good mod already. 09:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Competent mod, great guy. 10:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) No complaints.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Great mod, but I'm concerned about that the Taiwan time zone issue means that Spud tends to show up long after problems have escalated. 20:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  10:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Wink wink. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 10) Not a jerk, has a clue —  python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 01:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) I don't recall him being great with new users. Also part of the revert first and ask questions later crowd.  Not posting this anti-endorsement so that they won't get elected it, rather so that they'll improve-Hastur! (talk)  06:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will also graciously accept this constructive criticism and bear Hastur's words in mind. Spud (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 15:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) Where's my ten thousand dollars? Avida Dollarsher again 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember, I said "Sophie's right, as usual." I didn't say, "as always'. Nice try. Again. Spud (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Great mod, but since he lives in the UK he's asleep when most of the trolls (who largely live in North America) are active. However, this hasn't stopped him (or RWRW, the other Englishman) from doing a great job. -- Goatspeed. 17:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm from the UK but I don't live in the UK now. I live in Taiwan where the time zone is UTC+8. I usually edit here twice a day, when it's morning for me (late night in Europe, early evening in North America) and when it's nighttime for me (afternoon and early evening in Europe, morning in North America). I catch plenty of trolls. It's true that some dramas have started, escalated and come to an end while I've been asleep. But most of the worst ones are still going on by the time I get up. Spud (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rockford the Roe
User since March 2019. Currently a sysop.
 * Endorsements


 * 1) Legit user. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) — Oxyaena  Harass  09:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements


 * 1) I don't think this candidate has made enough edits yet- as constructive as they've been. -- Goatspeed. 05:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Goat

Ariel31459
User since April 2016. Currently a sysop.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Worthy of a chance Shabi  DOO  16:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Other considerations have changed my mind.-Flandres (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Is a Jordan Peterson apologist. — Oxyaena Harass  09:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think Peterson is irrelevant. Is that an apology?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Goat
 * 1) Honestly can't make up my mind. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hastur
User since March 2011. Currently a sysop.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Fucking A. I'll vote for you. Judge Dredd (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Used to hate this mutha fucker. Now that I have buried the hatchet (in his spine) I would be comfortable with him being a mod - an RW traditionalist much like myself. AceModerator 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Holy shit if u told me in 2013 this would one day happen, I’d believe it about as much as I’d believe u telling me pretty much anything else that happened this year. 23:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly endorse. 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I voted already, but this is probably the strongest anti-endorsement anyone could get. 17:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree with him sometimes, but Hastur has a level head and often has good input. 18:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck for bad judgement. GR drama crap was dead for a nice couple of months, but Hastur decided that he won't let it rest. 21:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear about something. GR's block was voluntary.  Ergo it was his decision as to whether or not he should be unblocked.  That he elected to be immature after I blocked him is not on my hands.  Although I did request that he withdraw yesterday, which he promptly did.-Hastur! (talk)  17:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I would question your general judgement when it comes to GR, unblocking him was in accordance with procedure. His subsequent immature behavior to then net himself a permablock (which seems exceedingly likely by now, I doubt the Coop is gonna swing much in any direction) is on him, not on you from where I'm coming from. 21:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Strongly oppose. Would be terrible admin. Shabi  DOO  16:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Looking at what he has done in past user conflicts(you know, which it would be his job to moderate,) gives me no faith he can be an impartial force to de-escalate flame wars.-Flandres (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) He's not that great of a mediator, and while I do value his input, I don't think he'd make for a good mod.  16:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon recent thought, I feel that I'm changing this to a stronger anti-endorsement. Hastur tends to be too welcoming of extremely bad faith types of editors, and while I agree with his belief that we should focus on being better in assuming good faith, I feel that Hastur's definition of good faith is too wide and would allow users who are abusive/hostile to sysops to stay around for far too long. His mediation skills also tend to amount to more or less "give the party he agrees with everything they want" from experience with him, which does little to de-escalate conflicts. Mods should be able to stand above the regular faff of wikifights when needed, and Hastur does not give me confidence that he is able to do that. 20:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki has always been about free discourse and my actions reflect the site's intent and culture-Hastur! (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) While I support the idea of welcoming and nurturing new users as Hastur has suggested above, I do not support the idea of welcoming new users who are openly hostile to established Sysops. Hastur appears to also support the latter (RW:CC). Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) He's a competent editor, but I seriously question his judgement. Seems too ready to welcome trolls with open arms while defending blatant hatred and incitement for violence. 18:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not characterize my actions as defending trolls and incitement to violence. Indeed, I would never support incitement to violence (if you're talking about LiberalTears, I still fail to see how those edits he made on Conservapedia can be considered incitement to violence, as do others in the coop).  Rather, I support an environment of free discourse where blocking is but one of the tools the community has to resolve problems.-Hastur! (talk)  19:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) too often hastur's arguments are 'i'm not personally offended' combined with a dig at people who might be. Mods should not be in the business of shaming others for feeling aggrieved about something AMassiveGay (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * inviting ken over to play didnt exactly sit well me either AMassiveGay (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you're that bothered by Ken so much, of all people, you're clearly on the wrong website-Hastur! (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and i will say this just once - go fuck yourself for enabling his homophobic shite AMassiveGay (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and i note ken was banned. maybe you are on the wrong website? or just living in the past AMassiveGay (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WOAH! why is this user allowed to be this toxic? really weird.   11:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be rude, ! 11:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Go fuck yourself Raven! 11:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, can you believe this, ? This total lack of decorum shouldn't be allowed. 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Has inflamed edit wars more than once. (And I should know, I'm the one who trouted them the second time.) Is this someone we should trus to moderate conflicts like that? (And also, he let GR back in for no reason, enabling him to turn this page into a clusterfuck, and the Saloon Bar into an even bigger clusterfuck than it's already become. And he wants LT acquitted.) -- Goatspeed. 01:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what you took away from that? That wasn't an edit war.  I was reverting a BoN.  I am a sysop. I even had the decency to leave an edit summary instead of just hitting rollback.  I was being patient with them, had they reverted me once more I'd have protected the page, as you did.  My actions were reasonable and I stand by them.-Hastur! (talk)  09:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Defends bigotry and shitty people in the name of "freeze peach," is hardly an impartial source. — Oxyaena Harass  09:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely impartial when I act and speak out in defense of RationalWiki's culture and mission, which you seem to have no interest in, given that you once unironically said "Western science doesn't have all the answers."-Hastur! (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) How is it that someone who opposed LT's banning is the same guy who initiated the Coop case? nobsHell to the Thief! 18:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The coop case was more to unban them than anything else. Something of a "really guys?"-Hastur! (talk)  05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: first A Mod oversteps their authority with an illegal block, then after a few days the Mod's not held accountable, but rather a coop case gets started on some trumped up offsite bullshit? What do you do after a permaban, offer him a blindfold and a cigarette?  nobsHell to the Thief! 06:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Founded on bullshit or not, it was clear the matter needed to be addressed. The coop was the best place for that.  I would never offer a cigarette, those are bad for you.-Hastur! (talk)  06:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)