RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive10

 Moderator election schedule Nominations and campaigning will run: 24 December 2017 – 07 January 2018 Voting will run: 11 January – 17 January 2018 (Results) We will be electing: 6 mods, 2 alternates

DiamondDisc1
Basically the same as last time: I'm not going to get into needless fights. I'm not going to abuse my powers. But I will probably do the best job possible. *cough* LOL nope (jk) *cough* Complimentary hugs will be given out to people who vote for me.

As moderator, I will aim to: For a job well done, vote DiamondDisc1! - 05:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Continue to discourage needless blocks. Just because someone disagrees with us doesn't mean they should be blocked. Only if they break wiki rules should they be blocked/banned.#Not go overboard with my punishments. I will do the amount needed, and no extra.
 * 2) Take user input. The wiki is not a dictatorship.
 * 3) Be an active user. I will aim to be on here everyday, and to make at least a few edits each day.
 * 4) Make friends, not enemies.
 * 5) Avoid being crazy.
 * 6) Work with the five other moderators on shared goals.
 * 7) Decrease stubs, even if just a teensy bit. I've been nominating a lot of articles for deletion and most of the entries on the Duplicate articles page are probably by me.
 * 8) Stop people from plagarizing my stuff (Mandatory joke list item)

CheeseburgerFace
VOTE A BURGER FOR MOD



I'M DELICIOUS

Basically the same as last time: I'm not going to get into needless fights. I'm not going to abuse my powers. But I will probably do the best job possible.

As moderator, I will aim to: For a job well done, vote DiamondDisc1 CheeseburgerFace! 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Be a moderator
 * 2) Avoid plagiarism

Kazitor
 What&rsquo;s he have to offer?

At the moment, techs would appear to have more power than mods on this wiki. So you can be pretty confident that I shouldn't screw anything up.

I'm campaigning to be able to have permission from the mob to take certain actions, mostly.

I have tried to abide by constructive dialogue my entire time here, even if it resulted in giving the same arguments and refutations for over a straight week. Would've been longer if they hadn't LANCB'd.

Ever since I was given my mop and bucket, I've constantly checked the unpatrolled edits, always multiple times a day, and have been consistently active since I registered. And from my mystical time zone of UTC+10 or UTC+11, I can get to issues at times of day others might not be able to (assuming, of course, that they have a life).

In the recent months I've been consistently eighth in terms of edit counts, sixth in December last year and currently first this month. I also had the 21st most edits in 2017, despite joining in the middle of that year.

Promises!

Relevant to the position of Moderator, I will, to the best of my ability,  Added competence!  Worthy of trust!
 * 1) Sort out the tech/mod overlap, but after the election. With experience in both, I could (and pretty much can right now) say which rights should be removed from each group.
 * 2) Continue reverting wandalism and blocking persistent wandals
 * 3) Promote RationalWiki:constructive dialogue relentlessly
 * 4) Personally refute PRATTs a thousand (more) times
 * 5) Or is that "PsRATT"? Once elected, I will sort out the proper pluralisation of "PRATT", once and for all.
 * 6) Resolve problems that require resolving
 * 7) Keep everyone happy, and the community friendly
 * 8) Actively participate in discussions requiring my presence (perhaps prompting some use of )
 * 9) Remain cool, calm, and collected. I'm not sure how important this is, but I don't foresee any possibility of me engaging HCM followed by LANCB.
 * 10) Utilise my ungodly time zone to the fullest extent. Always good to have round-the-clock disaster response.
 * 11) Use common sense rather than blindly abiding to bureaucratic rules. Only when necessary though, obviously those rules exist for a reason.

For a job done, even when it seems poorly done but is actually better, vote Kazitor! —Kazitor, pending 00:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bigs
Hello. I have been on our echo chamber shite site for about five months now. In that time, I've learned quite a lot, and have become one of the site's couple dozen editors. While relatively low contributing compared to many, I have proved...kinda likable? Okay, anyway, we could use some young blood running the site. Diamond is the only mod who joined less than two years ago, and two of the mods joined in 2008. (Sorry, this is my first time doing this.) And Diamond proved capable of winning the same year they joined! (Notices they made far, far more contributions in that time.) And, uh, screw it.

I won't abuse my powers, but I also won't be fucking useless. I fear being judged, so probably won't do anything too stupid. And yes, while I am so new that I couldn't even vote in the board election, I have made over 5,000 edits, in part because I have no idea what a preview button is. I won in the lead in the Discord elections, and am pretty well liked as leader on my personal server. According to Ronin, I'm "eccentric", not crazy! Also a mod on our Discord server.

Promises I Totally Won't Abandon
 * End FCP's near-absolute control of YMB
 * Outmaneuver my fellow mods and take control of the wiki
 * Work to breathe life into the overly inactive pages
 * In general not be a dick
 * The same crap I already do
 * Goat

𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bongolian
As a moderator for the past year, I am obviously running on my record this time around. I can't honestly say that I've done much that I couldn't have done before I was a moderator. This could be because there's been a relatively low level of drama during my tenure. The last major drama from my perspective was the attempted hijacking by ballot stuffing of the prior election.

As moderator, I've tried to be more proactive than I was as mere sysop in intervening in situations where there might be disruption to our mission: e.g. harassment and doxxing. I was around as a sysop/non-moderator when there was a major fight over Israel/Palestine that reached the Chicken Coop, and from that experience, I think it's important to try and defuse situations before they get to the Chicken Coop stage. The reason for this is that Coop cases become a major time sucks for sysops and have also caused some high-quality sysops to leave RW.

So, in short I think it's important for moderators to 1) be moderate and 2) try to stop problems before they escalate. Furthermore, I think it's important to both have moderators with some longer experience as well as new moderators. This is because there's such a high turnaround here. I'm already an "old timer" even though I've only been here since 2014. Bongolian (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Christopher
As a mod, I will:


 * Enact the blocking policy I proposed here (I'll probably double check at the saloon that it's popular first though).
 * Try not to go mad with power
 * Be as active as I was around May, when I was the most active editor by 870 edits.
 * What Bigs said about YMB but better.
 * Get rid of all the long but bad articles we have, especially unsourced BLPs.

Me  and Kazitor   are basically mods anyway in terms of what we can technically do and we haven't broken anything, (Literally the only user right mods have that techs haven't is the ability to stop people sending emails via RW) vote Christopher! Christopher (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Spud
You saw fit to elect me to the Board of Trustees in August (which was a lovely birthday present, by the way), so why not see fit to elect me as a moderator now?

As I've said before, I've been quietly mopping up here since September 2011 (probably before most of you had even heard of RationalWiki). In all that time, I've managed not to seriously rub many users up the wrong way, apart from a few notorious arseholes who soon got what was coming to them anyway. In fact, my experience here has been remarkably free of drama and pretty much nothing but pleasant.

For what it's worth, I have admin rights on nine other wikis apart from this one. I like to encourage as many users as possible to contribute constructively on each them. I have, however, sometimes politely suggested to users that the wiki might not be the right place for them. And I've inevitably taken a bit of abuse and had my user page vandalized a few times. Did it bother me? No. You have to be pretty thick skinned to be a successful wiki editor.

I also think that my real world job as the head teacher at a small private language school has given me plenty of experience of trying to keep a diverse group happy, as well as occasionally convincing someone to leave for "the greater good", as it were.

Whatever happens, I'll continue checking RationalWiki twice a day, every day and inevitably making a few minor edits each time. This site has been good to me and I love it! And I'm still chuffed to bits to have been nominated for this election once again.Spud (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario
It always amazes me to see how lucid of thought your writing is, and your good-willed patience with abrasive cranks is tremendous — verging almost on the self-injurous, I fear. You are a scholar and a gentleman. Your kind gestures and guidance truly means a lot to me. Thanks for being with me from the start. Why do all these vandals seem to hate you? You're really nice.


 * LeftyGreenMario's userpage
 * LeftyGreenMario's talk page
 * Contributions; please please check out some of these.

I'm extremely active in the Wiki, fairly active in the Discord, and I'm experienced with how Wikis work; I've been editing wikis in general for over 7 years now but I'm still a new face at RW and not very often I get to play with authority. I also can dedicate quite some time working on the Wiki and I'm very happy to offer comments and help especially on subjects I'm interested in and also love to invite comments from other people especially if they point out any inconsistencies with my reasoning. I do easily consider opposing viewpoints and am willing to change my mind as I'm very aware of self-cognitive short-comings, including my own. For instance, I often like to examine Articles for Deletion and make a comment here and there to try to make people think if they can. I've had changed some people's minds before and I really do hope my comments and suggestions are helpful. I've had quite a history of people thanking me for my efforts, if you check my talk page.

I've been in several heated debates and Reverend Black Percy has noticed me for my comments. I'm also in extremely good terms with him, one of the first users I consider befriended in the wiki, though everyone else has been kind and helpful particularly CowHouse, FuzzyCatPotato, DiamondDisc1, Bigs, Lynn, but the list isn't exhaustive! One of the first things users noticed about me are my helpful comments in fact. I also try my best to be as open and honest and clear as possible with things; if people make a comment I don't understand, I'll ask for clarification.

Finally, I'm a relatively new face around here (I registered years ago, but went active around the beginning of January of 2017) and I still consider myself learning the wiki's processes and I'd appreciate all and any votes. I also like to think we can give new users a chance, as there's always a next time for more experienced users anyway.

21:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will always advocate openness, thoughtfulness, honesty, and clarity. You will know just from the comments I've made.
 * I will try not abuse my power and I will always ask for community consensus especially on contentious issues.
 * If I am ever accused of power abuse I will apologize and forgive very, very quickly and will try my best to not double-down on anything.
 * I will never block people just for disagreeing with me and I will fiercely unblock anyone else who has been blocked only on ideological grounds.
 * I will always reserve judgement and use my patience at my best on whenever a disagreeable user is intellectually honest or not rather than make knee-jerk buzzword statements. I aim to attack the logic of statements rather than resort to labels. If anyone accuses me of labeling or and disputes any labels I will always try my best to either admit the mistake and/or explain.
 * I will also make RationalWiki 0.2% more Mario-y and I will not stop my cheeky references to Mario.
 * I will promise to not act like a token female here, focusing more on my ability rather than my sex. That being said, I think having a female in a position of power can communicate good messages about being inclusive.
 * I will never pretend to know things I don't.
 * My signature is bright and tacky allowing users and ME to easily identify my comments!!!11!

Cosmikdebris
I discovered RationalWiki about five or six years ago and have been participating in this grand experiment since then.

I'll do whatever I can to absolutely minimize conflict here. If conflicts do ensue, I promise to help guide the mob to a peaceful solution. I tend to keep a low profile and if granted moderator priviliges, I'll use those special tools only if absolutely necessary, and never unilaterally. I'll work with the other moderators to gain consensus on our shared community goals.

One of the best things about RationalWiki is high quality discussion and debate. I'll continue to promote and encourage healthy debate on topics relevant to RationalWiki and how it's run.

All of our content, from the lowliest stubs to the gold starred cover articles, require constant attention, and there is a never ending backlog of interesting subjects to investigate. I'll continue to make this a better internet destination by tackling our large list of things to do, and promoting community involvement through tools like the weekly dumpster dive.

I have an intense dislike for obfuscating layers of bureaucracy and will favor positive and simple solutions for issues we may face.

Thanks for considering me for this role.

Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nerd
I'll keep mine really short. I believe the best form of moderation means being around often enough, say, a few times a week, in order to spot and defuse potential edit wars before they escalate and to enforce our policy. Moderation also involves fighting vandalism and making sure RationalWiki remains a positive environment. I have had some time being a Sysop (since June, 2016). I oppose excessive bans. Some of you might remember that I was involved in an effort to remove all IP addresses from the Vandal Bin. I have no experience with being a Moderator whatsoever but will be more than happy to learn while on the job. If elected, I will normally behave like just another editor, putting on my Mod Hat only when absolutely necessary.

Thank you for considering me.

Nerd (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Xbony2
As moderator, I solemnly swear to become immediately inactive. This should be easy to do because I already am. If you take any issues to me, I will be very slow to reply to them. I'll make sure to leave the Discord since that definitely can be used to contact me quickly, which is a problem. When I finally get around to making a decision, it will probably be arbitrary, because I haven't really read the rules here and don't really know that many of the users. I'm not really sure what a moderator does to be honest. I guess it can ban users or something? I'll also make RationalWiki communist. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3
I promise to be a sane and good moderator. I won't hesitate to take action if there's an obvious edit war taking place. If the parties involved won't talk it out, I'll lock the pages and even block them temporarily if they keep doing it; those disputes sap time and energy from other editing. I'd like to prevent coop cases from happening in the first place, rather than letting them go on for weeks and divert our attention. I'm also not going to put up with obvious trolls who are trying to disrupt the site. 03:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

CowHouse
I hope I have proven to be a trustworthy editor who has not abused, and will not abuse, my power.

In terms of credentials, I have been very active lately (in terms of edit count I was the third most active user in December and fifth in November). I regularly look at the recent changes, and give a proofread and quick check of the edits on the site. Since I do this, I am very likely to notice if there is a situation in need of moderation before it escalates. I agree with Bongolian that issues should be resolved as early as possible rather than giving them the chance to turn into time-consuming coop cases that can cause frustrated and high quality editors to leave the site.

My main goal as a moderator would be to make sure RationalWiki is as inclusive as possible. That means zero tolerance on bullying, doxing, deliberately offensive usernames and blatant harassment. It also means that users should not be blocked or vandal binned due to disagreement or ideological differences. Generally, we should assume good faith. I am in favour of blocking vandals, since they have no intention of making helpful contributions, although lengthy blocks are unnecessary unless the vandal has been persistent over multiple days.

As far as flaws go, I admit that I'm still relatively new. I didn't really start editing until April 2017, only became a sysop in June, and didn't edit particularly frequently until August/September. If you value time on the wiki in order to fully establish a candidate's sanity then there are better candidates than me. I also have no experience as a moderator on this site and I am relatively inexperienced with major drama and coop cases. The largest I was involved in was the Bryan See case.

Finally, I promise to announce if I will be inactive on the site. If, due to unforeseen circumstances, I go a month with no edits and I have not announced my inactivity then my recommendation would be to replace me with an alternate.

I will always be open to feedback, suggestions and constructive criticism. Good luck to all the candidates, and thanks to everyone who votes for me and endorses me (and no hard feelings for any anti-endorsements). CowHouse (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Candidate fact sheet


DiamondDisc1
 ''': User since May 2016. Currently a sysop and moderator. Nominated by FuzzyCatPotato.''' 
 * Endorsements
 * 1) could murder my family, and I'd be okay with it. 05:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) He/She/They is awesome. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Likability. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Hell-bent on clearing up bad pages. —Kazitor, pending 01:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) GENERATORS! —ClickerClock (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) A frequent editor, level headed, and a scientist. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Sane, competent. Christopher (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) He/she thinks I'm special! But in all seriousness, this person is mild-mannered and has been a good influence on this website. Nerd (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Likable and trustworthy. GrammarCommie (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) The best stub killer ever. Though sometimes a little too trigger-happy with killing stubs, even I had to calm DiamondDisc1 down, but I cheer up by presenting DiamondDisc1 other stubs to kill. Even if you don't win, you'll still be the Jewel in the Crown of King Stub Killer. Notable for having User:DiamondDisc1/Mario, probably a sneaky attempt to win me over, oh, you! Oh, and overall valid contender. 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Has proven to be a responsible moderator already. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) CorruptUser (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

CheeseburgerFace
 ''': User since September 2016. Currently a sysop and replacement moderator. Self-nominated'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.- 05:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Experienced. Can be somewhat crotchety, but he knows how to do the job well. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Quite active on talk pages. —Kazitor, pending 01:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) A frequent editor and a good choice. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Would be a good mod. Christopher (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Please carry on, good sir/ma'am. Nerd (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Edits frequently and constructively. They were unlucky to narrowly miss out last year. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) He is mean spirited, and he is silly not in a good way. There are worse choices, but I would not support him. J. Zoia (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples? -Xbony2 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bigs
''': User since June 2017. Currently a sysop and ninja. Nominated by GrammarCommie'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Grab the pitchforks! Down with the old guard!- 05:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 05:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is active, which is what we need for mods, IMHO. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems competent enough. GrammarCommie (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Very active, even if a bit quirky. —Kazitor, pending 01:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) A new sysop who has done a lot of editing. A good choice for some new blood. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Boo! Wait, I think this is the wrong section. Whoops. I guess this counts as an endorsement then. I've seen him all over the Discord and wiki, seems nice and stuff. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Bigs seems like he's not only a nice guy, but seems to have a level head, not jumping to conclusions about people. He would make a good mod, IMO. J. Zoia (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Says above that he fears being judged, but surely a mod might be called on to do something controversial or unpopular. Can he handle that? Boredatwork (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If people want me to do something, I will do it. I mean actions I do on my own accord with the statement of fearing being judged. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mods need to be able to act of their own accord sometimes. Christopher (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You just need some degree of confidence, that's all! But remember one core tenet at Wikipedia: be bold. So what if you made a mistake? As long as you display overall competence, accept and appreciate your mistakes, learn from them, and move on, this will only improve people's judgement on you. 00:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) What Boredatwork said, plus he's admitted he's barely a teenager. Sorry! Christopher (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this feeds into the "quirky" thing I said. I too, a long time ago, have done some odd/kinda-cringy-in-hindsight things. It happens to the best of us. You're a decent person and it's clear everyone respects you, but it is true that it might be reasonable to hold off for a while. —Kazitor, pending 10:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this user, I thought they were a troll. Now that time has passed, I know better. However, given his quirky nature, it was easy to make this mistaken. So, I'm sorry for your accidental promotion. 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Nice on Discord (not to mention a mod), competent, but abuses USERNAME, though to be fair, not the only one guilty of it. I'd advise you to tone down on the template, especially if you're a mod and people are inexperienced with how template works and incorrectly assumes you're talking to them. I've made that mistake several times. 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. You're still a good user, don't let the criticism get in your way. 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Bongolian
 ''': User since May 2014. Currently a sysop, tech, and moderator. Nominated by FuzzyCatPotato'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Nothing bad to say.- 05:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) The person's username has the word "Bong" in it. 05:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Done well as mod so far. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Frequently adds lots to various articles. —Kazitor, pending 01:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Level headed and competent. Christopher (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) What their name is a pun on has puzzled me since I first saw it. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're the first one to ask, . It refers to everything you might imagine, and maybe even more: 1)  2)  3) bongs but more importantly  4) Mongolia and even 5)  in  Bongolian (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) —ClickerClock (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Bongolian has always stood out to me, probably from helpful comments and good edits. 22:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) One of the most active editors on here, definitely fit for the job. 23:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Still gets my endorsement despite accidentally blocking me once. Experienced, edits frequently, and has been a responsible moderator already. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportCorruptUser (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) A fine person for the job. Nerd (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Absolutely not - you may love me or hate me, but do you really want someone who unilaterally removed my old account's sysop status with a misogynistic comment and blocked it during an active coop case being a moderator? You wouldn't find anyone worse than Bongolian. J. Zoia (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For anyone who has missed out on the RationalWiki:Chicken coop, J. Zoia has been trying to hack the election with an initial attempt at nomination stuffing, including invalid nominations (non-sysops). This is reminiscent of the previous moderator election when User:Avengerofthe BoN made such an attempt by ballot stuffing. This is the reason why we need better rules on election qualifications. Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The comment in question was "sending the troll home to cheerleaderland"; this was hardly misogynistic because the troll in question (User:Alyssa Bryant) identified himself as a cheerleader on his homepage. This was not the first time Alyssa Bryant been demoted but the fourth and had previously been identified as a troll. Bongolian (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Himself really? I hate to be mean about it, but you're disgusting. J. Zoia (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, there are people who love you? CorruptUser (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Kazitor
 ''': User since June 2017. Currently a sysop and a tech. Self-nominated'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Seems nice, competent, etc. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Trusworthy and I don't wanna be the only mod who joined this year. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 02:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) 👍- 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) He knows what he is doing. —ClickerClock (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * —ClickerClock (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But... you already did me. Unless that counts regardless; I'll take it. —Kazitor, pending 10:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) What everyone else said. Christopher (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) — 23:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) We need more from UTC+10/11. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Relatively new user but would be a competent moderator. It's a good idea to have mods from different time zones as well. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Bongolian (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Need more satellites to monitor against all threats to this website, foreign or domestic. Nerd (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

Christopher
 ''': User since January 2017. Currently a sysop and a tech. Nominated by CowHouse'''

</li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Can be a bit blunt, but more often than not this makes him the sane man in a conflict. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) - 18:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) A fan of reasoned discussion against all odds. For instance, had engaged with Birdman for a over a solid month. —Kazitor, pending 22:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Kazitor. I imagine Christopher has the right trait of being level-headed. 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Goes out of his way to encourage healthy debate and always presents a moderating voice. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Is essentially a moderator already, and has done a good job. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely yes assumes good faith and seems to have a level head. J. Zoia (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Bongolian (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Conscientious and active.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

Spud
 ''': User since September 2011. Currently a sysop and a ninja. Nominated by CowHouse.''' </li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Sane. Christopher (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Same as what Christopher said. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) - 18:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) In sane company (ha, see what I did there?) —Kazitor, pending 22:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) A frequent editor with high-quality edits. A good choice. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) A frequent, high quality editor with plenty of experience. Qualified for the job. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Vote for the status quo... Eeeh, that didn’t sound quite right, did it? Aaanyway, what I meant was that Spud does solid work, has experience and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong candidate. Nerd (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

Cosmikdebris
 ''': User since August 2012. Currently a sysop. Nominated by CowHouse.''' </li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Not a bad thing to say about them, as far as I recall. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) - 01:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Christopher (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Christopher (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A long-time editor with quality edits. I add my voice of support. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Can't think of any reason why they would not be a good moderator. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Frequent quality contributor —Kazitor, pending 07:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) No need to reinvent the wheel, or not to endorse those who have already sloshed around with mop and bucket to general satisfaction. Recommended. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Would make a good moderator for nuclear fission chain reactions . Nerd (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

LeftyGreenMario
 ''': User since April 2014. Currently a sysop. Nominated by CowHouse.''' </li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Giving me stubs to kill...Mwahahaha!- 21:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Kind, respectful, competent, all-around good person and great choice for mod. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Level-headed and nice, with reasonable block times and punishments. Nothing bad to say about her at all. 23:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) She's got my vote. Christopher (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The best candidate imo (other than me, obviously) . Christopher (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) An excellent choice, frequent edits and level-headedness. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm with her. 20:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Definitely. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Stand with LeftyGreenMario! For a better future on Rationalwiki! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) She can be trusted not to abuse her power. I was genuinely surprised nobody had nominated her before I did. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Too lazy to come up with a reason. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A simple "per all" suffices for the lazy. :P 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Highly active in the community —Kazitor, pending 07:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) All of the good endorsement messages have already been taken. Comrade GC (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely yes seems to be a sweet person who assumes good faith and seems to have a level head. She and Christopher are the two most qualified candidates, IMO. J. Zoia (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Plumbers for Power. LGM does good thing in these here parts. This (mostly) lurker approves.ScepticWombat (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) +1 Goat CorruptUser (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) This website could always use more people who like to jump on the bad guys. (Don't eat random mushrooms, please!) Nerd (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Duh! I know the difference between a Goomba, a Rhinestone Goomba, a Terekuribō, a Goombeetle, a Toad, a Mummy-Me, George Washingtoad, a Zombie Shroom, Absorbing Mushroom, Rock Mushroom, and of course, the Super Mushroom. 20:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

Nerd
 ''': User since February 2015. Currently a sysop. Nominated by CowHouse.'''

</li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Being special.- 17:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Competent! I know Nerd mostly from posting interesting WIGOs, but I noticed that the edits are frequent and are all high-quality. 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) As mentioned above plenty of high quality edits. Comrade GC (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "[P]lenty off"? Come on,, you're better than this. CowHouse (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Would be a good mod. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) -Xbony2 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Nothing wrong with nerds. —Kazitor, pending 07:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Christopher (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Bongolian (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

Xbony2
 ''': User since July 2017. Currently a sysop. Nominated by Xbony2.'''

</li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Great guy. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) I suspect you might not be entirely serious. —Kazitor, pending 02:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Joke nomination. 05:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Derp 05:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Boo! 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Please do not waste your vote. CowHouse (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Try again next year if you become serious. Bongolian (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Not enough commitment. Comrade GC (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will anti-endorse you all! -Xbony2 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3
 ''': User since May 2015. Currently a sysop. Nominated by J. Zoia.'''

</li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Hell yeah! Sometimes she talks to him sometimes when she&#39;s only dreaming (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Banned
 * J. Zoia (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Rarely active and has a history of drama. Comrade GC (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Only made 139 edits in 2017. A moderator should be more active. CowHouse (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, no. 04:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Not very active, nominated by a troll. Bongolian (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Not only nominated by a (possible) troll, but is essentially one themselves (from what I've heard). Christopher (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "I've heard they're a troll" is a valid reason for anti-endorsement. For not voting, sure, but I'd say anti-endorsements should be your own opinion. —Kazitor, pending 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Having looked through their coop cases, talk pages and contributions myself, he's certainly a troublemaker and not a good candidate for mod. I'm saying that myself. Christopher (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) How about no, Scott? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) On the one hand, I find myself agreeing with Pbfreespace3 on political issues more often than not. On the other, I joined during the tail end of the I/P Crisis AND the Clinton vs. Sanders debates. I saw how devastating those were to the wiki's userbase, and that Pbfreespace3 was involved heavily in both of those. If I may ask a question of, given that you were one of the foremost combatants in both of these HCM 1-level conflicts, how can we trust you to be an effective moderator? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

CowHouse
 ''': User since November 2016. Currently a sysop. Nominated by Bongolian.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Would make a good mod. Christopher (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I wholeheartedly endorse this person, he is cool and dosen't jump to conclusions. In other words, he is mod material. J. Zoia (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC) (Former sysop)
 * 3) A good user who puts a lot of thought in posts. I think the user also has good judgement. Probably should've been nominated earlier. 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They were nominated ages ago, just took a long time to accept. Christopher (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Active editor —Kazitor, pending 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Very active, diligent and effective editorAriel31459 (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) 👍- 01:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) A good choice for a new person in the moderator pool, a cool head who has thoughtful posts. Bongolian (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Active and with plenty of quality edits under their belt. Comrade GC (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) History of quality edits. Nerd (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

</ol>

Bryan See
Back in October, we dealt with Bryan See in the chicken coop. I was the one who tried to put him "on probation" (the failure of which is part of why I'm not running), and that didn't exactly work. IIRC, it's one of the longest coop cases of 2017. If another person like him appears this year, which I don't consider too unlikely, then how would each candidate deal with such a person, possibly before it reaches the coop? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bryan threatened and harassed several people before he was banned here. If someone came along acting like him, I'd ban them, any less blatant than Bryan See was and I'd open a coop case calling for his/her ban. I'm genuinely surprised that no one banned See earlier (I only saw the harassment until after he was given the probation and didn't want to go against the coop).


 * EDIT: It wasn't clear before but I assumed "another person like him" to include "has ignored several people asking him to change his behaviour" (as Bryan did). I obviously wouldn't want someone banned without warning for Bryan See-level stuff.
 * Christopher (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This kind of person would be blocked indefinitely except from their talk page, where if they want to, they can negotiate their unblocking/binning. If they keep going, they'll be fully blocked. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * these two approaches seem rather arbitrary to me and rather unsatisfactory. blanket statements on what in reality more nuanced and ambiguous are not especially helpful. talks of bans jumps the gun with the assumption someone is clearly in the wrong. i would much rather see an attempt to investigate, acquaint oneself with the facts, mediate. you know, the whole moderator thing. with the bryan see thing specifically, the harassment that we were allowed to actually see was pretty minor stuff (and not without some provacation). in my opinion, ronin's attempts at 'probation' should be commended. such things are assumed to have a possibility of failure. it was a good thing to try to accomadate a user with very obvious mental issues. it was disturbing to me that some felt we should not even try. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually don't see the way that we handled the Bryan See case as flawed. He did have some constructive edits, but he is a man obsessed, and I think that obsession got the better of him. He was warned about his misbehavior, he didn't stop, he was cooped, and after pleading his case he was given a probation that required him to follow some reasonable and mutually-agreed upon rules. He very soon thereafter broke a rule and was subsequently permabanned. Someone who is just here to make trouble shouldn't have been given so many chances, but I think that See honestly wanted to make positive contributions. Bongolian (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't now if it's possible, or too convoluted, but perhaps there could be different levels of user rights for such an issue. Some to allow mainspace editing or using other people's talk pages. The latter would make it harder to harass anyone (although logging out would actually solve that issue, so it's not ideal). Unfortunately I'm too familiar with the progression of what happened, since it seems it took a while before I found out what was happening while other people had it under control (as in, were discussing the issue). But certainly I would try to resolve the issue on the user's talk page, state clearly what the problem is and what they should be doing, and move to more extreme measures if they show an unwillingness to make use of such suggestions. —Kazitor, pending 22:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish we could have got Brian See to entertain the notion that all that Phobosgate stuff only existed in his head and persuaded him to seek the help for the mental health problems that we was quite clearly suffering from. But that aside, I'd have to agree that, ultimately, the Bryan See incident was dealt with as well as it could have been. I think it was good of us to have given him as many chances as we did.


 * I cannot really see any circumstances under which users would be permabanned but still be allowed to edit their own talk pages. Anybody who has been blocked indefinitely has almost certainly said some really unpleasant things, maybe not harassed other users directly but certainly expressed some vile opinions. Such people would continue to use their own talk pages as a platform on which to spew out their bile for as long as they could. But I really think that all problem editors should be dealt with on a case by case basis. And in the six and a bit years that I've been here, I've seen plenty of crazies come and go and not one of them has managed to destroy the wiki. Spud (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A probation user "right" that includes sysoprevoke, de-autopatrol, and the conditions of Bryan See's probation. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, the Bryan See case should have been resolved a lot earlier. The malicious content he had written about Wikipedia editors was clearly worthy of a block. Unfortunately, this was not properly highlighted in the coop case, and many users who were unfamiliar with See's contributions never saw the pages since they were deleted.
 * Assuming a similar case arises where there is no harassment, I would tell the user to stop adding irrelevant content to pages (in Bryan See's case, "Phobosgate" and Wikipedia editors). If the user does not listen, then I see no issue with a RoninMacbeth-style probation involving a ban on the topic of the user's obsession. That gives the user a chance to prove themselves as a constructive editor. CowHouse (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternates
This past year, some of our moderators went on extended leaves of absence. Should this be repeated, should an alternate be elevated to full-mod status? RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It would depend what the purpose of the 6 mods is. Is that so you have a range of thoughts and people able to act, or is it mostly redundancy? I suspect the former, so the answer to your question would be "yes". I would think the mod who is leaving should be sure to announce that beforehand though, so people aren't sitting around confused about where they went. An unannounced absence might even be grounds for de promotion. —Kazitor, pending 03:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For those answering yes, I have some follow-up questions: (1) How long does the leave of absence need to be before an alternate is elevated? (2) What happens when the original moderator returns? CowHouse (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I say, doesn't sound unreasonable to elevate an alternate to mod status; in fact that's what I initially thought the position was about. I think an official leave of absence would be no contributions for a month, which I think is a very reasonable timeframe, though it's not a set-in-stone "indicator". If user makes, say, one edit PER month, I'd still consider that inactive so I think discretion is advised. 05:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, an alternate should definitely be elevated to mod status if a mod disappears. And yes, the decent thing for the moderator to do would be to say he or she would be leaving first. But I think that a month's absence is too short a time before you can start talking about replacements I'd say three months of no editing at all is when it's time to talk about replacing the absent mod. Then I think that the sensible thing to do would be to bring the absence to everyone's attention in the Saloon Bar and have a vote as to whether or not the mod should be stripped of his or her rights. If the absent mod then came back, he or she would no longer be a mod because tha mob would have spoken. Spud (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If they announce that they're leaving, make the alternative a mod immediately (and strip the mod of his/her mod rights). Otherwise, I'd say two months of inactivity is the threshold. If the former mod comes back they should start a saloon bar vote asking for their modship back and should need a majority (not two thirds of the vote or anything like that). Christopher (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like proposition. 16:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the threshold should just be one month, but yeah. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than a saloon bar vote, perhaps something on the talk page of all things in moderation would be more appropriate? —Kazitor, pending 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think an announcement in the Saloon Bar is the best place to get a lot of eyes on it to begin with. The actual vote can take place in a more appropriate place. Spud (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My idea is that the mods maybe can get a consensus in their group to decide whenever to re-demote the user back to mod status. We can get a saloon vote for survey-reasons, but discussion can perhaps take place in a mod circle. Do mods have private discussions? (and I wonder why if not but, that's another subject). 21:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, at RationalWiki:all things in moderation. Not quite private, but the discussion is limited to the mods. —Kazitor, pending 22:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, good, then I do think discussion of re-demoting mods who return should be held in those mod-only discussions, but a mob opinion never hurts because it tricks people into thinking we actually value their opinion . 22:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As other uses have pointed out below, we are currently functioning with 4 active or semi-active moderators. Therefore, I don't think we necessarily need 6 active moderators all the time. Here are my positions on a few hypothetical scenarios (I hope this isn't confusing):
 * (a) We have 5 highly active mods and 1 unannounced inactive mod – No need to take any action, 5 active mods is enough.
 * (b) A mod announces they are leaving indefinitely – Replace the mod with an alternate.
 * (c) A mod has been inactive for 1 month – Leave a message on their talk page asking if they're OK.
 * (d) At least 1 inactive mod (unannounced absence and at least 2 months without editing) and at least 1 semi-active mod – Community vote on whether or not to promote an alternate.
 * If a former mod wants to restore their mod status, my personal view is they should wait until the next election, although it should be a community decision. CowHouse (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Free candy
Which candidates will offer me free candy? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Get into my van and find out.( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 16:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you tried voting for me?- 18:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can offer you candy, but it'll be "free" in some senses and not certain others. —Kazitor, pending 20:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 🍭🍬🍫 All of this can be yours for your vote. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Candy is nothing to me. Give me soda instead. 01:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 🥤       𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling yourself "big" is not a joke, huh? Having fun mashing the tag? HUH? 21:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Will this do? Spud (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * CowHouse (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Mario Party 8, if anyone wins the Star Battle Arena, that person gets a year's worth of free candy. Unfortunately, it seems like some of this candy will turn you into a vampire and leech money from people while others transform your legs into uncontrollable springs or even a whirlwind. 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We only have five moderators
Weaseloid recently changed their user rights so that they are no longer a moderator. Since the election is so soon, should we just stay with five or should we promote an alternate in the meantime? (Current list of moderators) CowHouse (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Voting will end in two weeks, so it might not be worth it. On the other hand, the effort involved in demoting an alt to mod then promoting again two weeks later is practically zero. —Kazitor, pending 04:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact we've been running the site with four moderators since Percy went on hiatus in October. We should be fine for two more weeks. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be fine, and it's not really a big deal. Although the fact that we only have four active moderators (and David Gerard has also said he is "hardly here any more") is actually a good reason why we should promote an alternate. CowHouse (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Too much work for too little reward. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 08:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not much point seeing how close to the election it is. Christopher (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too late now, and I'm the replacement mod. 16:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We can stick with a little less, not a big deal at all concerning the election. I'm sure the community can handle itself. 21:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Preventing abuse of power
I'm not running for mod, but one of my goals for last mod term was:

In short: I think sysops are too block-happy and there's little oversight (from other sysops) or recourse (from the blockee). I've explained that view in a bit more depth in Essay:All Sysops Are Bastards. How (or if) do you plan to reduce sysop block-happiness? 10:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Expanding the blocking policy would be my first step. It's obviously better if everyone is made aware of what sort of actions are appropriate, such as suitable block lengths for various infractions. First a public announcement would need to be made to ensure as many people as possible were made aware. Then anyone not doing that would be reminded on their talk page. If they continue to be unreasonable, and it's clear that this is from willingly disregarding the guidelines, they would need a promotion; but they could be demoted by any sysop who thinks they're worth a second chance. If this happens too much, they would probably be promoted to sysop revoke. I'd also adjust any disproportionate bans as necessary. —Kazitor, pending 10:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I were a mod, I'd likely put controversial topics to a vote, like I did with the recent coop case. I do like the idea your essay proposes. 10:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if someone has some beef with what I do (e.x. Accidentally abusing my authority), I'll listen to the complaints. I'm very open to criticism. 10:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read your essay, and it seems like a decent idea but with too much bureaucracy. The best way to solve these issues isn't to make it tedious and painful. Usually when I block someone, it's because they are persistently wandalising a variety of pages (the rest is spambots). Unless your proposal is about ideological blocks, which I can't really comment on because I have no experience doing that (really, honest). I'd say ideological blocks should be banned (pun wasn't intended, but is now after typing it) completely, and the process could apply to users who aren't complete vandals but trolls or other annoyances that don't contribute (obviously remaining civil on a talk page counts as contributing).—Kazitor, pending 10:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Make it so only trolls can be banned from their own talk page, and blockees can detest their blocks on their talk page. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "troll", what about spambots? Christopher (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I would post a topic in the saloon bar (where it would get the most attention) asking people what exactly they think the blocking policy would be, as I think that something as major as this that isn't a short-term problem needs to be decided on by the community. My suggestion would be that only spambots, ridiculously blatant sockpuppets of banned users, and people literally calling for other users to be killed/raped etc (as well as other really serious harassment) are blocked immediately, with vandals being warned at least three times to stop before being blocked for a short amount of time (the 9 hour option maximum in most cases) with talk page access not blocked (unless they're vandalizing their talk page) and then longer if they continue (but never the "3.14 months" option or longer for IPs). I would also suggest the removal of "counter productive edit warring" from the block list as it is nearly always used on people changing the POV of an article repeatedly (if they genuinely are edit warring, protect the page). Christopher (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the permaban-happy sysops, I'm willing to agree to those new rules for blocking. Although the edit warring thing is a bit more complicated: Quite often, page protection is the tool we use to prevent changes in page POV, not blocking. From experience, too many sysops say to "take it to the talkpage," then don't actually go to the talkpage. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, page protection (in the case of "edit wars", real or imagined) is more difficult as it's a perfectly sensible thing to do provided you discuss the edits on the talk page, as opposed to blocking for edit wars, which is always ridiculous. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a difference between how we treat people that have shown an effort at positive contributions vs. people who are just here to fuckshitup. If we treat everyone equally, it just encourages trolls. I think Bryan See is a case in point, he genuinely wanted to make a positive contribution here, and we gave him ample opportunity to do so. On the other hand, it's a waste of time catering to trolls (e.g. the one posing as a cheerleader on various accounts). Bongolian (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should be setting blocking policy IMO. Edit warring should net a reminder/warning to the offending parties, not a block. If we ever resort to block for edit warring, should not exceed a few hours. Perma-bans should be reserved only for serious harassment, inappropriate usernames. Vandals should not be warned ANY amount of times. Any sort of blatant vandalism goes right into vandal bin. Users that make low-quality edits who don't seem to be immediately vandals should get an informal reminder/warning. If Sysop doesn't follow the guidelines, give the Sysop a heads-up message of what Sysop did wrong. 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not 2007 anymore. The days of not blocking anyone because that's what they do on Conservapedia and we don't like censorship are long since over. I don't see any good coming out of having a RationalWiki's Most Wanted list for debating whether somebody should be blocked for vandalism or not. We already have the Chicken Coop for cases where we aren't sure if somebody wants to harm the site or not. If you know somebody's just being a mindless vandal, treat them like a mindless vandal. Having said that, if the community consensus is for very short blocks for vandalism, fair enough. Most wiki vandals give up when they see that their vandalism doesn't stay on the page for very long and when they see that they're not obviously getting to anyone. I agree that users should not be automatically blocked for editing warring. I think the sensible thing to do on such occasions is temporarily lock the page, have a word with those concerned and, yes, tell them to take it to the talk page. I'd also agree that users shouldn't be automatically blocked on ideological grounds. When I see that somebody's edited a page to rewrite it from a right-wing point of view, I just roll it back and forget about it. Very rarely do those right-wing editors try to change the page again. A lot of the editing I've done here has been undoing BoNs' misguided attempts to make a page more neutral. Like I said, that's not vandalism, it's just done out of a misguided belief that wiki = neutral. But we're not neutral and I don't see why we should apologize for that. Spud (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Guys, we have to remember the good old days. But seriously, wandals are fucking annoying. Why should we welcome someone to edit on our site whose only interest is to vandalize? 05:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The block log should be regularly checked by moderators and other sysops to make sure blocks are fair. Ideally, in order to make it easier to check genuine blocks, there'd be a way to hide the joke blocks (π×0 seconds) that can occasionally clutter the log during block wars.
 * However, this does not fully address the issue, and we need a solution that will prevent unjust blocks from happening in the first place. After all, once someone is blocked they usually leave the site, so they don't necessarily notice if they have been unblocked later.
 * I think the community should establish a consensus on the actions that are worthy of a block and the appropriate block lengths. One problem I noticed a while ago is that we need a clear definition of "vandalism", and as FuzzyCatPotato's essay points out, [o]ften, RatWiks ban people whose "vandalism" is that of altering the ideological tone of an article.
 * An additional strategy would be to politely tell a sysop if you think they are too block-happy. In my experience, most sysops are sane and well meaning. If their block is accidental or harsh, then they will usually be apologetic and are likely to be more careful in the future. This will not completely prevent unjust blocks from occurring, but should make them less likely to recur.
 * My personal view would be similar to Christopher's, in that edit-warring is not worthy of a block. The correct protocol, in my opinion, would be to undo and tell them to take it to the talk page. If they persist, protect the page. CowHouse (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Activity
This question goes to. How do you know you were "the third most active user in December and fifth in November"? Nerd (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Special:editcount. Christopher (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it, Christopher.
 * Thanks for asking, Nerd. I should have provided a link. For the record, you were first in November. CowHouse (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and ! Nerd (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, looks like I've been fairly consistently eighth, last month I was sixth and this month I'm currently second (I'll be first once I save this page). I had no idea. —Kazitor, pending 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was number four. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And I was number 1 for the whole year! Christopher (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Elaborations
I've taken quotes from some candidates and will ask them to elaborate...there may be a couple questions in there which matter more to some users than others: &mdash; Unsigned, by: 141.135.121.186 / talk

Christopher

Could you give us a borderline example of "to go mad with power" and why you think it is or isn't crossing the line?
 * Making a noticeable (but not massive) alterations to RW policy without getting consensus first, but assuming there's consensus because two people said they want it on a category talk page half a year ago. I'd regard this as an abuse of your position, the appropriate course of action would depend on how big the alteration was. Christopher (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Disc

Whats an example of a flight you found needless yet others found needful? Why was it needless?
 * "Flight"?- 01:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Kazitor

What are three specific concrete things you'd do to promote constructive dialogue
 * 1) Reverse blocks that were given for disagreement rather than wandalism/counter-productivity
 * 2) Point users to relevant talk pages when they disagree
 * 3) Discourage ad hominems, guide discussions to the source of disagreement
 * —Kazitor, pending 01:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Bongolian

What is your favourite colour?
 * None in particular: I have color naming difficulty. Bongolian (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Spud

Should we look for a mod whose "experience here has been remarkably free of drama"? Is your lack of experience with drama a good thing?
 * It shows that I haven't pissed anybody off in six and a bit years. I think that's a very good thing. And i certainly think that a mod should be someone who hasn't instigated drama or set out to piss people off. In fact, yes, I think my lack of experience of drama here is a good thing because wiki drama needs at least two people repeatedly clashing against each other in order to exist. There have been times when people have left unpleasant comments on my talk page or vandalized my user page. Some other users might have responded in kind and brought about a drama. I didn't. Spud (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Lefty green mario

How will you make the site more Mario-y?
 * By making more random Mario references where needed and maybe documenting some of the stranger, lesser-known things of the Mario series. 00:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We also chatted about this IRL so we could do a collaboration between us. 01:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Kosmic

Many candidates are focusing on an end or minimisation of "conflict". Why is that a priority? To what degree should we end conflict?
 * Most candidates are in favor of encouraging rational discourse, and minimizing flame wars. I don't know how you translated that into "end conflict." Why would anyone want to focus on that? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nerd

Whats the best way to get blood stains out of carpets (we are talking tons and tons of blood)?
 * They have specialized laundry machines for carpet. Nerd (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Xbony

If a tree gets hepatitus B in a forest and no other tree is there to catch it...does that mean Donald Trump's hair is fake?

PBfreespace

How do you stop coops from happening in the first place?

Cowhouse

Why do you want to be a moderator? (in 30 words or less).
 * If this question is making fun of my inability to give concise answers then this is my response. I can't properly answer this question in 30 words or less. CowHouse (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll probably edit block reasons or something like that, and maybe while I'm add it, I'll create an article outside of userspace (maybe essayspace or funspace) that's all about Mario. 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Increased security measures
There are proposals to increase security on the saloon bar, such as permanent IP bans, IP range bans, and checkuser. Personally, I support the proposed measures. What do the other candidates think? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm apathetic. It's two days before voting begins and I've other work to do. 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I initially voted yes to checkuser, I now oppose all of the proposed new measures. This troll just wastes a small amount of time, not worth allowing stuff which could be so easily abused. Christopher (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the reason why I took back my proposal. Why should we punish all of our users because of one idiot troll who is only a bother for a short period of time? If the troll is really a bother we can ban 127.0.0.1 for a couple hours. Also, the reason why I am even on the wiki is because of how lax the IP bans are. 04:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to all the proposals under discussion in the bar, especially permanent IP bans and checkuser. I believe that the potential drawbacks far outweigh the benefits at this time. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to any permanent bans on IP addresses. It will not achieve anything because IP addresses can easily be spoofed by malicious actors. I am opposed to adding checkuser: the tool is of limited usefulness as per the I furthermore would oppose giving checkuser ability to moderators due to its potential to facilitate doxing: it should not be automatically assumed that all moderators will act with good will. Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a candidate, but here's my two cents. Grawp has been an annoyance for almost ten years now. He's an annoyance on sites where they do have checkuser. Not to mention the fact that IP bans are, as Bongolian pointed out, ineffective, and IP range bans are absurd. There is a bigger issue here.
 * That we have been reduced to this by just one person adding joke nominations speaks volumes about how paranoid we have become with regards to these elections. Even when Avenger of the fucking BoN was a candidate, we weren't this close to the community trying to implement checkuser. I think we really need to reexamine either the role mods play, or how we view these elections. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * [EC] FYI, you haven't yet voted against the measures despite being against them. "Grawp" isn't one person, it was originally largely one person on Wikipedia butt our one is an admitted copycat, possibly multiple copycats. Christopher (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing I may support is CheckUser. I, however, question why this issue has been raised in the Saloon Bar, where discussion is public. It'll serve better to discuss in more private venues as now, the troll, being fed, realizes that it has the potential to affect RationalWiki based on its actions and may be more motivated to try to push it. But on the other hand, if this troll has been an annoyance on sites WITH CheckUser, CheckUser may not be effective as thought. And annoyance it is at best given how easily reverted its edits are despite clogging history (which may be case for a nuke function; if there was a nuke button reserved SPECIFICALLY for this troll, I'd support one though I think existing ones are not reliable/buggy and nukes always carry a huge risk and can be abused to the complete detriment compared to regular blocking and reverting). I also entirely oppose permanent bans on IPs especially since IPs WILL change anyway after a number of days and the most persistent trolls will just use proxies and whatever, though those extra seconds the troll takes to edit from a new proxy may add up over time. I still think we should've just ignored and reverted and carried on as we usually do, but this troll apparently is important enough to have a discussion centered around it. Nice. 20:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this is a question that needed to be done in public, considering how many of us are vehemently opposed to check user. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly anything important needs to be discussed in private on RW. Christopher (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think there are any real drawbacks to checkuser. So you can determine people's IP address, who cares? I'm not a fan of permanently blocking a huge IP range, though. —Kazitor, pending 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As Fuzzy said, it could easily lead to witch hunts. Plus it could be considered a violation of our current privacy policy. Christopher (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * except its not just IP anyhow. you can get geolocation. put that together with all the info on someones userpage, like if they go university, their hobbies and such like, their interests etc. you can probably get enough to dox someone. at they very least, the wrong person. considering the nature of this wiki, and this types of trolls this place attracts, there is scope there for real harm for very little benefit. plus some of us are actually very protective of our privacy. even slight invasions are not OK AMassiveGay (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * i doubt i would be missed, but i for one would not stick around if it were implemented. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose permanent IP bans and checkuser due to, as said above, the possibility of witch hunts and doxxing.- 04:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same here. It sounds like a good idea on paper, but the execution in the worst case scenario is really, really bad. 20:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to CheckUser for the following reasons:
 * I'm not sure who I would trust to use it responsibly if we did have it and it can be easily abused (e.g. doxing, lack of regulation on its use leading to witch hunts). Theoretically, anyone could be elected moderator, including trolls, so giving mods CheckUser would be incredibly irresponsible. Sysops definitely shouldn't have it either, since all you need to do to become a sysop is not act like a troll and make a few good contributions.
 * Long-term and high quality users would be more likely to leave the site if it were implemented than if it were not.
 * It is a breach of privacy and trust. The trolling it would prevent would be outweighed by the drama it would create.
 * Sock puppets are not against the rules here anyway.
 * CowHouse (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, since it's so incredibly unpopular with the vast majority of our regular users, I have to withdraw my support for CheckUser. And really, what has been accomplished by the particular troll or trolls that sparked this discussion in the first place? Anything they write can be easily removed as if, for all intents and purposes, it had never been there with a single click. Their attempts to get the worst editors in the history of RationalWiki.to run in this election have fallen flat because most of those editors aren't active anymore and none of them have responded. As I've said before, I've seen plenty of crazies come and go during my time here and not one of them managed to destroy the wiki. Spud (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm not advocating it anymore either. It's clearly highly unwanted and wouldn't solve enough problems to justify that. —Kazitor, pending 11:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the "witchhunts" and "scaring users away" or "doxxing" really valid complaints. CheckUser generates a log, I believe (and you are optionally able to insert a comment on why you're using it), so you know which users have been using it. Mods are supposed to be highly trusted users to begin with, getting these tools, but CheckUser, the trustworthiness now takes a different standard? On the other hand, I'm not sure how effective the "automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" function is. I don't get the repeated claim "witchhunts". Sane mods who question a BoN would bring up discussion about this BoN privately and they'd look for patterns that confirm but also play extra cautiously. CheckUser's function is to figure out which BoN is registering all these users and maybe even find out a repeated string of BoN. It still doesn't stop the most persistent trolls, but we also shouldn't make it hard for us to keep blocking a BoN string who'd just register again after being blocked. 17:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" function blocks the IP for just under 9 hours. I can't think of a time where checkuser would've solved any major problems. Christopher (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to mention this is, arguably, a witchhunt right now, against Alyssa Bryant's new accounts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Mods are supposed to be highly trusted users' - no they are not. they have just been voted in. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "voted in" part from community consensus is exactly what makes them more trusted than the average sysop; they also come adorned with extra tools that essentially requires trust from the user base to operate efficiently. It's extremely easy to anti-endorse someone who isn't capable enough for the job, and if someone isn't capable, then they are demoted. This is a matter of trust.
 * ive been here long enough to know thats complete arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How many mods have abused their power? I just know one of them. And that one doesn't even seem to be valid either, some election shenanigans. 19:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When that mod abused the power, did that mod got their status stripped? And how many mods in total didn't abuse their power? 19:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * i can think of a at least a couple. besides the point though, it doesnt mean they are super trusted. doesnt mean they are competent. elected is not the same as trusted. just look at trump. my few dealings with elected mods does not feel with confidence. should i also trust someone who, i might not have a high opinion, who wins such a popularity contest but i didnt vote for? i'm certainly not voting for any of the nominees who have displayed a cavalier attitude to blocking. im certainly not voting for any one contemplating checkuser. is trust is conveyed by a vote, then i do not trust them. nor will i vote for those changed their votes in that checkuser vote in the saloon bar because they saw they were on the losing side. I do not trust them either. yet some of those are likely to be mods soon. elected, yes. Trusted? not by me. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "im certainly not voting for any one contemplating checkuser"
 * Mods don't have control over that matter. And besides, how do you actually know who actually supports policy X over who is lying to get votes? When it comes to campaigning, anyone could be a lying bastard. 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CheckUser can probably extend this block for longer if 9 hours doesn't suffice. I think more temp-blocks are in the 3 days range. As for "witchhunt", yes, there is one with Alyssa Bryant and this can be more easily handled if CheckUser is available instead of guessing which accounts are Alyssa Bryant. CheckUser can gather MORE evidence of sockpuppetry in that case rather than just discern from patterns. And as for mods for "they're just voted in". I'm still not familiar with how the voting works but my impression were that mods were trusted ENOUGH to get extra tools (mods can lock the page from virtually everyone else, change ALL user rights, and hide revisions from everyone, which ALL can be abused like CheckUser) and are trusted to solve problems. In this instance, should they not be trusted enough to get CheckUser? Why is RationalWiki a special case when it comes to not having CheckUser? 18:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * all those can be abused, and have been abused in the past. they wont however result in a dox like checkuser may. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the saloon, there are possible legal issues with getting checkuser (I'm sure there'd be a way of wriggling out of any objections and I doubt anyone would sue or anything but it's still another reason checkuser is an awful idea). A RationalWiki where mods can see all of your recent IPs at the click of a button doesn't sound much like the one described in the privacy policy. There's no reason to have checkuser just because that's what Wikipedia does. I was an idiot for supporting checkuser (however briefly) and I'm not just saying that to keep votes (I was the first to change my vote). Christopher (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I support minimal penalties as a matter of principle and I oppose long bans on IP addresses. Nerd (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoever keeps fucking up the ordered list / list item tags in the "fact sheet" needs to stop
? ? ? 19:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh? Christopher (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Occasionally I've seen the "</li>"s become exposed. I guess that's the problem. —Kazitor, pending 01:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the glitch has been around forever.- 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same thing with the ===Goat=== bug. This wiki's server is kind of buggy. 04:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a parser bug to me. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

When will voting begin?
I'm not trying to be annoying, but voting was meant to start yesterday. CowHouse (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 05:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And will it end later to accommodate for this? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 07:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You gotta spam David, he has server access rn 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * —Kazitor, pending 10:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Second try: - 04:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, should we start training new people with server access? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure sounds like it. 05:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please 03:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we also have an introduction on the wiki voting process? Or perhaps merely a link on this page? Comrade GC (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this what you're looking for? CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * that would be it. Comrade GC (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We want to vote! We want to vote! Spud (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We need more people with server access.- 06:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In case the people spamming him with pings didn't realise, he already acknowledged this yesterday on his talk page. CowHouse (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Should be on now, or I added the change, anyway. I forget if there's a special button to press - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Voting worked for me just now. Thanks for taking care of this. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It works!!! Nerd (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions: CowHouse (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The moderator elections schedule should be updated. The voting start date needs to be changed, and the end date should also probably be extended.
 * 2) I think it would be a good idea to update the site notice to let people know that they can now vote, especially since voting started later than scheduled. Also, a link to the election booth would be helpful.
 * Absolutely right on both points. Since voting started 3 days late, I suggest that it should end on January 17 at the earliest. Spud (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated the sitenotice and used what the new schedule would be (same number of days to vote with new starting date). Christopher (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Thank you! Nerd (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier to have the end date for voting on the site notice? Otherwise you'll have to keep updating how many days are left to vote. I'd also suggest we leave the campaigning link in the site notice.
 * Also, does anyone care if I change the date here to say "Voting will run: 11 – 17 January 2018"? CowHouse (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope.- 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I updated it to automagically say how much time's left. I assume it's assuming UTC, but I'm not sure. It's either that or server time. —Kazitor, pending 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. CowHouse (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Should there be more people with server access?
And if yes, how would we go about picking those people?- 01:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Submitting a proposal to the Board of Trustees would be a good start, I'd think. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, since it has to do with the actual operation of the site. It's probably best left up to them rather than the wider community. —Kazitor, pending 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Al Spud
Faros vi kion pri la linvga situacio ĉi tie je RacioViki'? Ĉu vi subtenos tradukojn? 'Legion what do you want from me  03:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bonegan demandon! Jes. Kial ne? Unue, mi klopodos traduki kelkajn mallongajn artikolojn pri mitologio, folkloro kaj literaturo. Mi ankaǔ volas vidi  aliajn tradukojn de artikolojn pri aliaj temoj de niaj kleraj uzantoj. Ekzemple, mi malmulte scias pri scienco. Mi ne povas skribi pri scienco en Esperanto. Ĉu aliaj uzantoj povas fari tion? Tion mi kredas. Mi esperas ke en decembro de 2018 ni havos pli grandan Esperanto-kategorion kaj multajn uzantojn en la uzanto-kategorio Esperanto-parolantoj. Spud (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bonvolu paroli la anglan!- 08:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I can't really call that request American exceptionalism. But there's a link anyway. —Kazitor, pending 09:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)