RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive14

Techpriest
Sup. Been a year huh.

If you want me as a mod, vote for me. If you don't want me, don't vote for me.

If you need convincing; some of the stuff I've been proud of in the past year is generally helping to keep the site operational. Banning trolls, handling screwups from overzealous sysops, defusing situations. I've done it quite a bit and I'll keep doing it, should you choose to elect me as a moderator. For the more grunt work, you may have seen me vote in AfDs, seen me revert vandals, seen me standarize interface pages, extend templates in useful ways, close up votes and enact the results. When I think my judgement is compromised, I'll withold my vote, but I'll always defer to the opinion of the mob; we've disagreed quite often and I'm sure we'll disagree again in the future. With that in mind, if you want a moderator who will give you the same fair chance everyone else gets... vote for me.

Flandres
First of all, I have a job that permits me to access RW regularly, and nothing like college that eats up my time. I have recent changes pulled up 24/7, so if my account looks inactive, it would be more accurate to say nothing has caught my interest. I've heard complaints in both mod elections I've seen that some mods "aren't active/attentive enough," but that won't be an issue with me.

My constant monitoring of recent changes also means I am informed about most aspects of site drama that get to ATiM as soon as they begin. I am a regular in most functions of site politics, usually casting a vote in any policy or penalty related matter. If I am asked to make a judgment, it will be with full background knowledge of what went on. After all, I do have a lot of experience in "site politicking" already, hmhmhmhmhm...

I could go into my opinions about how RW should be run (we should be willing to recognize some site traditions need to be reformed and we are better off not coddling blatant troublemakers out of some vague commitment to one interpretation of free speech), but I won't because I don't think that's relevant. In the end, the community legislates while the mods merely step in when things get a little out of control. I'm not running to impose my vision of "the values this site was founded upon" on others, nor am I running to make myself superior to other users. I am merely volunteering for a bit of extra work.

CorruptUser
I'm one of the Techs here, and I can proudly say that I cannibalized better people's codes have added a few pieces to RationalWiki, the biggest being our "Articles for Demotion" page on the ribbon. I'm not the best at naming things, I wanted to call it "Articles for Braining". IIRC, I also implemented the pointless polls portion of the SB. Not sure if I should be proud or ashamed of that one, but cards on the table.

I'm fairly openminded, or try to be anyway. As a mod, I would promise to slack off only intervene when necessary.

I've had plenty of debates where I've been able to keep calm, had plenty of insults thrown my way. I'm fairly relaxed and can mellow out when I catch myself getting angry. Life's too short to spend it being miserable. I feel like I could do that as a mod too. 19:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Spud
Well, here we are again.

I don't know about you, but I feel this year pn RationalWii has been a bit less turbulent than the one before. I believe that's because the community took quick and decisive action against obvious trouble-makers instead of giving them umpteen second chances that they didn't deserve. That's something I definitely approve of.

There really isn't much There I have to say that I haven't already said several times before. But it might be new to some of you. So here goes.

Future historians of RationalWiki may disagree over whether I was the last of the Old Guard or the first of the New Guard. I've been on RationalWiki for just over ten tears now. I created my account on 10 September 2011 and I've made as near as damnit at least one edit a day on average every single day since then. I've been a moderator since June 2018 and a member of the Board of Trustees since September 2017. I haven't the faintest idea how I became this popular. But I'm not going to complain about it. Now, I won't lie, there have been times when the drama here almost got too much for me and I've felt like packing this game in. But on the whole, my experience here has been an overwhelmingly positive one. The only dramas that directly involved me were the ones that involved just about everybody. The only users who have obviously hated me have been yjr ones who hated everybody else here too.

For all its faults, RationalWiki is something with which I am proud to be associated. Its mission is one that I wholeheartedly support. I genuinely feel that RationalWiki has made me a better person. I've been a lifelong liberal but it's thanks to RationalWiki that I am unapologetically a woke SJW and I don't care who knows it. I probably would have become one anyway but it was RationalWiki that pushed me in that direction.

And in spite pf the trolls and in spite of the drama, this can be a great place to just gang out. This was the first place I turned when I badly needed emotional support. The community came through for me and I will never forget that.

So I want to continue doing the most that I can to help make this website the best it can be,

If I am reelected, I promise to check on this wiki at least twice a day every day, to regularly check the All things in moderation page and Articles for deletion, to weigh in on the issues of the day, to offer as much helpful advice as I can and to try to guide new users in the right direction. I also plan to restart my stalled project of translating pages into French, Spanish and Esperanto. I'll take requests. Tell me if there's a page you'd like translated and I'll do it. As long as it's not all about science and preferably if it's about history, literature or folklore. Those are the things that interest me the most.

And if I'm not reelected... Well, it's been a good three years and I'll do all of those things anyway. Apart from regularly check ATM, although if I'm asked to give my opinion there, I will.

Spud (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario
Hello! I'm a fellow middle guard plumber here, former mod who had quite a few successful runs (including a successful board election), placing first in most, if not all of them. I really thank you all for voting for me those times. I do hope I maintained my reputation, made good judgements, as well as performed a good job being a moderator in spite of disagreements, several even heated ones; I'll be more than happy try again as moderator for this year.

I'll try my best to maintain a friendly and inclusive community. Thus, I have a low tolerance for bigotry. I also almost always try to understand disagreements and disputes between two users, and I do try to keep accusations of bad faith to specific displays of such (and I generally don't accuse any longer-time users of such). I also want to help promote more constructive dialogue for RationalWiki, so if I see things getting heated, I'll probably pop in to tell people to cool it. I do believe RationalWiki is indeed going more slowly in the direction of constructive dialogue rather than just insults and needless antagonism, and I believe it is for the best. I do feel the wiki might use a bit more moderator discretion at points, as I sometimes had to step in and do something even though I'm not a moderator.

I understand I'm not a very frequent Saloon Bar poster, but I do look at what's going on from time to time and try to do some housekeeping around there. I'm more of a mainspace editor, and I'm an experienced wiki editor at that, having edited wikis for more than a decade (I first started in MarioWiki in 2010) and I do look at All Things in Moderation and Chicken Coop, and I probably post there more often than in Saloon Bar (laughs).

While I maintain a presence on Discord, even the severed one a while back, I do try to keep communications open between that and here. If you have to talk to me in private direct messages, especially if you fear being judged by other aggressive users and need advice and need to dispel drama, feel free.

I hope as a moderator I fulfill my role as approachable and safe to talk to whenever a user has an issue.

Also as a bonus, if you want to see more dumb word salad renames from me, it'll be a good idea to vote for me. :P Really, if RationalWiki stresses you out, you should try to ask your washing machine to play Chutes and Ladders in Charon on a Wednesday.

Bongolian
I am running on my long record as moderator. Together with LeftyGreenMario, we guided a revision of the of the RationalWiki:Community Standards that has brought a greater degree of calmness.

Rockford the Roe
Well, the year flew by pretty damn quick and I'm happy to say that I think I've gotten better at dealing with vandals and long-time nuisances. My Ken obsession came and went and I'm hoping that'd be the lowest point of my tenure. I'm proud to say that I was swift in my actions to ADefenseOfChristianity and I hope that I can continue it I'm reelected. If y'all don't want me anymore, I can still clean up vandals and usernames as a tech. 14:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Summa Atheologica
Hello. This is Summa. I'm running for reelection as moderator this year.

So what are my qualifications? They are several. I have managed to avoid serious drama, and have effectively helped defend this wiki from outside threats. I was the first person to propose banning UT, and also was the first person to propose the range block against Morris. When random BoNs and trolls start whining, they nearly always list me as evil and oppressive, and have since even before I got demoted. 22:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ariel31459
This is the fourth year a member has been kind enough to nominate me for moderator. The first nomination was given by the notorious Dysk, a nomination which I did not answer. The subsequent three times were by well respected members of our community, whom I thank for the respect implied by their nominations. I have made close to five thousand edits on this wiki since 2016, not nearly as many as some to be sure. I have not done much editing recently because I was not obliged to do so by the nature of my position or standing here, and to be blunt, because there have always been competant people to fill the eight slots, I have not been preparing to run for moderator by rounding up the usual suspects, etc. I respect the wiki to the extent that, should I be elected, I agree to uphold its standards, its ethos, and I agree be as active as the most assiduous administrators may think necessary.

The standards are the current operational procedures. The ethos on the other hand is more difficult to describe. Obviously it must be based upon the principles or stated objectives of the wiki. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, is the first of four stated goals. This dovetails well with the second principle, Documenting crank ideas. However, the very notion of "crank ideas" opens the way for common modern ideologies to generate incoherence. What is a crank idea? Operationally, either there is a scientific consensus, otherwise a small group of our users can make that determination based on personal beliefs. This latter oligarchic situation often leads to the following syllogism: X is a crank. Y is their idea. Therefore Y is a crank idea. This sort of facile convenience is not uncommon here. On the other hand, a moderator may not attempt adjusting the beliefs of other users beyond enabling access to relevant information. Neither should a moderator make the attempt to expunge fallacious ideas that enjoy broad acceptance among contemporary users. I do think that the goals are important, however, and should be emphasized wherever possible.

This is where the Exploration of authoritarianism and fundamentalism comes in. These categories, of fundamentalism and authoritarianism, can correspond to some of the most negative aspects of human nature. Their expression can be found in all cultures, in varying degrees, and is indigenous to any strictly held ideology. As it stands, the four principles of the wiki are simple goals, and do not imply any particular ethical system. At present we are here much concerned with analyzing, as a part of the media itself, the sources of injustice that may be paired with religion, authoritarianism, and preposterous scientific theories. We, additionally, concentrate upon some of the critiques of racism, misogyny, homophobia, and similar behaviors that are presumably unrelated to our basic categories; as they often originate from the darker side of individual human nature. The moderator is therefore left with the choice of encouraging alarm, moderation, or remaining silent upon any of these seemingly pressing issues. If elected I propose to be moderate in my actions and considerate for the concerns of other users while presenting my own very strong sentiment that the wiki is for improvements to the understanding and should be so directed whenever possible.

Rereg
Rereg accusations are thrown quite liberally as of late. What will you do in response to these? 19:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain. Do you mean new users are accused of being socks? Spud (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so Plutocow almost barred editing the wiki for being a mistaken sock after a multitude of signups involving a "crow" username. Another user with a corvid username also got mistook for a rereg. What could've been avoided is if people waited for these accounts to edit first. I'm not talking about directly antagonistic usernames like "Raven is Back!!!!!" (who I doubt are even by the original Raven guy a while back) but like "QuantumCrow", "AmazingRaven", "The Thoughtful Magpie": benign usernames (well if such usernames crop up right afterward, that falls into the "directly antagonistic part so don't try to act clever). Additionally, people were accusing a creationist troll as being a rereg of Ken (which I highly doubt since their patterns don't match at all) and also speculating who that one self-proclaimed analyzer was, as well as speculating about that one chicken. There was a recent accusation of a bad-faith poser, "Jah", too. I'd want to curb such discussions as I feel they detract from the behavior in display and also gives off an air of paranoia that can make editing the wiki unnecessarily hostile for new users. Should bad faith be called out? Yeah, and do explain. But, unless you're fairly familiar with the pattern of edits going on, don't play your accusation cards. I think it's okay to be suspicious of some edits, but try to assume these people will respond fairly. Honestly, I just want users like the creationist troll, the scrooge troll, and the analyzer just be memory-holed. I hate having to bring them up. 23:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'll have to point out that USHistoryAnalyzer was only banned for 3.14 months and that ban is due to expire at the end of this month.


 * But, yes, LeftyGreenMario, I completely agree with you. People like ravens for fuck's sake ("Quoth the Raven, 'Nevermore.'" Great poem!). We are going to get other people with the word "raven" in their user names in the future. And people like birds. (I don't have to tell you that, LGM.) Yes. You're absolutely right. There has been pure paranoia on display here. It's OK to be suspicious but wait until the new editors actually do something before taking action against them. And users who constantly make baseless accusations against others, at the very least, need a slap on the wrist.


 * And for what it's worth, I don't believe ADefenceOfChristianity was Ken either. Just because he said, "I claim VICTORY!" proves nothing. That's just online Christian troll speak. Not Ken speak. Spud (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my stance, sysops should be less firing the gun on assuming anyone they don't like is an alt of another user. I realize that I'm slightly hypocritical on this, but as a general rule unless you have a very concrete indicator that someone is an alternate account, you should refrain from these sorts of accusations. I've had to help people before who got assumed to be an alt of Mikemikev because someone assumed the editor was making their edit to one of the pages Mike (or whomever poses as Mike; it's not super relevant) likes to spam, even if the edit was completely benign. To me this should be resolved with the threat of sysoprevoke if it keeps happening after being given a formal warning. It's best to be on the conservative end (heh) with banning users. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * How does one identify a user who has reregistered after being banned, blocked, or binned? It all usually seems like spectral evidence to me. If the mob wants them gone that's all there is to it. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you can never ever be too sure. I don't often directly call people I suspect who they are. While I feel Ken and Mike are relatively easy to spot (even so, how I deal with Ken-like posts is raise an eyebrow and revert; more egregious examples usually are a binning or a short term block since [if Ken,] Ken's not going to wait until the block expires; Mike is just a breathing community standard violation for literally every community in the Internet so...), the other guys, not so much. What you should always do is look at the context and look at the behavior. Is a new user on Saloon Bar posting right after a protection expired? Is the post disruptive? Is the post in bad faith (e.g. bad sources, promoting positions that go squarely against RationalWiki's goals like anti-mask/anti-mask/climate change denial)? Anyhow I still not often impose indef blocks on people, but I also think if other people want to change my blocks, then fine, I don't think it's a big deal. 23:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Discord and Datcord
Also, how often do any of you check Discord? How do you feel about the Discord? Is it a useful tool to curtail drama? Or does it obfuscate discussion too much on the wiki for those without Discord? Do you think it's reliable for project organization? 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've rarely used Discord. My own personal stance on the matter is I don't really care what happens on the Discord server on the condition there's no, y'know, doxxing going on.  If you have something important to say, say it here.  19:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe discussions on Discord can help coordinate moderators to make a decision without inviting further drama. It can also help coordinate wiki projects in ways talk page couldn't. I think it has its place here. 23:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It was only following the Board election that I re-registered on Discord since it was decided that was where Board meetings would be arranged. (I joined Discord when I had my previous computer and then forgot my password.) I check Discord once a week. I have to admit, it doesn't really float my boat and nothing of great importance seems to be going on there. Spud (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * My stance on this is straightforward; Wiki stuff belongs on the wiki. I see Discord mostly as a useful avenue to provide assistance to people new to the site, help people find sources for use in their articles and in particular help with overagressive sysops blocking people for no reason. With that in mind, I am firmly of the opinion that any disputes with editors belongs on the wiki. Any discord in relation to our site should never be seen or used as a "conversation backroom"; any ongoing opinions from participants in disputes (discounting the peanut gallery) should be had on the site. Similarly, I believe that for off-topic conversations, users may find a more useful avenue in their own spaces or in the Saloon Bar; while it's inevitable when running such a community, I don't think any associated community should place a higher focus on off-topic chatter. It's a tough balance to strike, but that's the way I've tried to manage it up to this point (given I'm also the owner of the discord technically speaking, this seems relevant). -- Techpriest (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't know. Don't use it myself.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is almost unethical to take RW wiki business off site and have things decided on a private messaging board that not everyone uses. RW business should stay on RW and no bitching, decision making or wiki business in general should be discussed on Discord. I was using it for awhile and the amount of complaining about other users was pretty surprising but also unsurprising. That is my feeling and in particular no mod discussions or decisions should made on Discord. Acegodfuckingdamnit 02:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of going on Discord — I'm a social media lightweight. I burned my Facebook account years ago. I now try to limit my Twitter time to 2 minutes per day unless it's research for RW. Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Main in Space
Oh also do you have any plans working on mainspace? What will you do to improve our content on this wiki? 19:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I created the Articles for Demotion page and added the pointless polls thingy to the saloon bar. I also created one edit filter (which so far has done nothing), and plan to create more in the future.  I'm quite happy to see my addition to the blanking filter has pretty much doubled the number of vandals getting frustrated by it.  19:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As I've already said, my major contribution to mainspace has been my translations. But also like I said, that project has been stalled. I was starting an unfinished draft in April 2019 when my computer stopped working. Since then... I don't know what it is. Has there just been lethargy in the air since the start of the pandemic? Or do I not have as much energy as I used to because I'm getting older? I suppose it's the latter. Anyway, I definitely will do more translations in 2022.


 * I am also an admin on seven other wikis apart from this one. (And I haven't created as much content on them over the past year as I'd wanted to either.) Spud (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My edits in mainspace have been what they've always been. I do monkey work, I clean up templates, I fix technical errors. My expertise as always has been internet communities, and I list as such on my userpage. I may assist in correcting technical errors as I see them. I have not created a particularly large amount of mainspace content, but I'd like to say I have done a good amount of work on cleaning up vandalism. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll get Lord of the World out of draft space one of these days, and I've been meaning to make an article on Éric Zemmour.-Flandres (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Me? I don't have any particular projects in mind but I just tend to wander and fix whatever article I find. I've worked on Babylon Bee, but I also have an idea of the subject of left-handedness floating around. How does left-handedness tie into RationalWiki's goals? Lefties have been subject to abuse (historically children were forced to use their other hand or else they get hit and emotionally put down) and laws against them (Japan was so discriminatory against lefties, such as wives afraid of being divorced if their husband found out they're lefties) that a book was written about it), and society is revolved around right-handedness without right-handers really realizing this (think about the language too). It's a great springboard for then talking about concepts like CRT, but lefties are still disadvantaged in society. Anyway, I'm rambling. 21:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Haven't written an article since last year. Writing new articles is really the only way to improve this wiki, as much as I like being a user here, many of the articles most in need of improvement are guarded by users expressing a particular turn of mind in them. Right now, I'm thinking of enlarging the Carl Jung article with desiderata from Man and His Symbols. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My extensive mainspace edits should be apparent to everyone. I'm currently reading The Storm Is Upon Us: How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything, so I'll be continuing to edit the QAnon page for a while. I would like to see more professionalism in references on mainspace pages: better formatting and not relying on third-level citations (e.g., WP). Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the attitude that is needed on this site. Far to many users are keen to pump out Mainspace pieces that are lacking in the professionalism and rigour that this site, of all sites, should be exemplifying.
 * Some, at least basic, training in scientific methodology, formal logic, and Bayesian stats would be of benefit to many users. Leucippus Salva veritate 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Technical Restraint
Question for all the techs here - how did you refrain from not doing mod stuff with your tools? And by extension, how could you control that as a RW mod? American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Techs have access to the same tools moderators have, but, they should not being using tools to moderate a community or try to dispute moderator actions. For instance, they should not be using sysoprevoke or remove sysoprevoke put by a mod. Or, for another example, they should not unprotect moderator-specific page protections put in place by a moderator nor should they suppress revisions without a good reason. There was a user back then, Dysk, who tried to do this. Guess where they are now. Dishonorably discharged from the board and hopefully will never get tech back. Instead they should be using tools for wiki maintenance such as script edits, fulfilling rights and renaming requests (with hopefully good judgement; can also rename offensive/disruptive usernames), edit filter edits, and whatnot. 23:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh that's easy. Whenever I got those naughty urges, I would just pray those urges away.  05:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is pretty easy actually; techs have almost identical powers to mods (I think the only difference is filter access?), but the limitation on techs is that this power may only be used to keep the site running. Basically, we can't go around and overturn mod issued sanctions on pages (and handing them out is pretty limited; we can't modlock over any ongoing disputes for example; suppression is more free however, but at the same time limited by suppression rules) and we should never set sysoprevoke on people (but we may freely hand out the Ninja role, which lets people mark themselves as bots). The only exception to this is if the mob approves of an action (specifically by vote), in which case our abilities may be seen as identical to mods. The role of mods mostly is one of bootstrapping votes and conflict resolution, rather than technical skills. We just give the mods access to the more technical areas as well because it puts more hands on deck and because the stuff techs can do is also vital in letting moderators do their job properly. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been a tech for longer than I have been a mod. I generally don't do much tech work because my skillset is not up to date. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Character
When the bodies hidden under the floorboards are finally discovered, will the neighbours be shocked because you were always so polite and charming or when talking to the press will they describe you with synonyms of beastial and rabid, and that your eyes are an exact shade of unspeakable horror? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never murdered anybody. You can't prove it.
 * I don't think my neighbours would describe me as "polite and charming". But they would use the words "quiet" and "kept himself to himself".
 * I will point out that my neighbours are all Taiwanese and I'm the only white guy for miles. Spud (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We are all said to live in a pandemonium of our own making. The hell of it is you don't have to live there but you hate to change. Unlike Davy Crockett, I'm not going to Texas, no matter what happens.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I no longer have neighbors, they all must've moved around the time they decided 7AM on a Saturday was a good time to mow their lawn. 16:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ♬ 27 PEEEEPOLE. EVEN MORE, THEY WERE BOYS, WITH THEIR CARS, SUMMER JOBS. OH MY GOOOOOOEEOOOEEOOEOOEOOOD, OOOOOOOOOOOHHH ARE YOU ONE OF THEM? ♬ 16:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean probably the former. People usually see me as quiet, polite, shy, etc which weirdly matches a lot of profiles of some awful people. Then, they see I own copies of violent video games like Grand Theft Auto V, Left 4 Dead 2, AND Mario Party Superstars, and then it'll all make sense. To Fox News, anyway. 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When the bodies get found, the neighbors probably won't know what to say. I don't interact much with them, but I generally am polite to them when I do encounter them. Of course, this assumes that I am stupid enough to leave the bodies under the floorboards. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

AFG and accountability
So, we had this incident early involving three candidates and user:$. I'm not going to write in details here, but this user $ made a terrible post on the saloon and was binned and had their user page (which was just a "Hello") deleted by LGM when they asked her what was the problem with their post. Later they also asked two mods what was the problem and they got reverted. Do I believe $ is here in bad faith? Absolutely. But I don't think we actually have enough evidence. Maybe the user only made a mistake (although I repeat, I agree that being a troll evading their ban is indeed more likely). But I do believe that we should take more seriously. Perhaps they were actually trying to understand what was the problem with their post, not everyone knows so much about Wiki culture, and even less about RW culture. I also expect mods (but also sysops) to explain at least their decisions, which didn't happen this time. GeeJayK (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (not a candidate, but I'm involved in this situation so w/e)If they were really trying to find out what was wrong about their post, their response wouldn't be to try to get two established users banned. We didn't show any tolerance when Scrooge or UShit tried to do the same thing, so we shouldn't tolerate it here. Plutocow (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right that they shouldn't have done this, but I think some people do this out of anger. Just like me you got banned early this year out of a mistake (in your case, my mistake), so I thought you would understand it too. I've been on the Wikisphere since 2006 and I've seen this happening dozens of times. People do seem to believe that they can get productive users banned for this sort of thing. My personal guess is that this $ is in fact a banned user too, trying to be disruptive, but that's just a guess, not a reason for such harsh treatment IMO. GeeJayK (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, please, close this topic in case it gets too meta and/or we start to talk about this specific case. My question wasn't very clear. Where does good faith end? And where does troll-enabling start? GeeJayK (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The social organization here is skewed toward dogma commonly shared between lefties. Being a lefty myself, I can hardly complain when I see such a bias in others. But such behavior does exist because of a sense of privilege some users develop over time, perhaps from getting acknowledgements and agreement for the kind of ideology they express. That's also fine, except there is a natural tendency to become lazy or presumptive. Intervening moderators should be prepared to interrogate any problematic user: one should ask "What do you mean? Why does it concern you?  What do you hope to accomplish?," etc. And finally asserting "you are welcome no matter what others think of your ideas as long as you express them sincerely and without malice. " UncleKrampus (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific case (about which I know nothing) shouldn't be discussed any further here. This isn't the appropriate place for it. But I am more than happy to discuss the generalities of the situation.


 * UncleKrampus put it perfectly. "Without malice" really is the key.


 * And I'll say again that it's OK to have suspicions. But wait until a new user actually does something that gives some proof your suspicions are true before taking action against them. Spud (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I said, my point here was not to discuss the specific case (if I wanted to do it I would have gone to ATIM instead of here). I just used it as an example to illustrate my question since I would have handled it in a totally different way. Thank you for the answer, to both of you. GeeJayK (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see this handled in ATIM; I'm not fully sure what the question is. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay I looked into it a bit more; I think I understand what your question is? You basically want to know how I would handle a situation like this. Well, as luck would have it, I have handled these situations before. Firstly, I would definetly not respond with wantonly shitposts; users can be extremely clueless about certain things. Everyone deserves at least a good faith response to having their comments reverted the first time around. I highly disagree with s assessment that if a user instantly wants the people banned that they disagree with that they are likely an alt. For a specific example, I've had to deal with a BON who got very upset at Oxy in the past year, who didn't turn out to be an alt or evader. Rather, I sat down with the user on my talkpage, explained to them that since they are a BON, our temper for that sort of stuff is a bit lower, and that it's more productive to go to the talkpage, raise your edits and await a response, instead of going on the talkpages of people to complain about how awful Oxy is. They listened and we were able to resolve the conflict peacefully. Everyone deserves that olive branch. That's not troll enabling, that's the basic assumption that new users are here in good faith. It becomes troll-enabling when we tolerate someone's bad behavior over and over and over (good examples of where we in my eyes failed with this are GR, and with the power of hindsight, nobs) and they just keep being assholes or if they don't take that olive branch. That's when you can start banning. To conclude; USH and Scrooge both were offered these branches. Neither ended up taking them. That's why both got sanctioned. In the end, I agree with UncleKrampus' conclusion. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The username, the hasty shitpost on saloon bar, and the combined trying to rules-lawyer and subsequent abuse of pinging to get established users banned (the most bad faith action they took) in response to an undid revision is just all signs of a disruptive user. I deleted their page and vandal binned because they were obviously abusing pinging to waste other people's time. Note I didn't even block them for that long, if at all, they still had somewhat of a chance to respond with something, but they used that last bit of goodwill to just go to other talk pages to do the same thing they were vandal binned over. 14:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, please let's not talk about the specific case here. My question was broader, I only used $ as an example. Nonetheless, user got banned.I'll move this to ATIM maybe. Gonna travel this weekend and I'm not going to have time to discuss this anyway. I'll probably remake this question anyway, I wasn't very clear. GeeJayK (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just explained how I identified the bad faith. It's kind of a case by case thing, but if people were genuinely new here they'd definitely not act like this, not trying to get the mods involved. I think I'm experienced enough to have a general idea of how new members act. I've interacted with a few, even some I politically disagree with. RWRW a while back.... Anyhow minimizing disruption was my goal here and I didn't think trying to talk it out on the user page was going to achieve that. Maybe I shouldn't have responded with as much snark and such though. 15:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted $'s request for reinstatement on my talk page not because of what they wrote but because of what they posted in the Saloon: a piece of Renaissance artwork with what could be regarded as racist/sexist context. I took the no offense in the artwork itself, just the context that $ put it in. Having raked through a large amount of alt-right garbage on Twitter, I recognized the context. There are or were Twitter alt-right accounts that would go on-and-on about Aryan 'beauty' and post various classical works of art, occasionally one would even see them following some Hitler artwork poster. If $ had bothered to post some things that were missional first, then it might be reasonable to assume good faith but that was not the case. Bongolian (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
I asked about this a while back but got no response. I assume people overlooked. But I'll ask again, anything you want me to improve on from hereon out? 15:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, my biggest (current) issue is that you were a bit mean, IMO, to BeardOfZeus. While they were causing problems by feeding a troll, a 2 week block without TPA seems a bit...harsh to me. I would've gone with no more than a week, and pi days seems sufficient. They have a history of positive contributions. (Though when they're unblock date nears, I probably will take this to ATIM and try to initiate a formal sanction on this). American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BeardOfZeus was persistently troll feeding despite being told numerous times to stop (and they have been blocked prior) They also had a record of just giving people a hard time for their decisions and dragging the discussion out longer than needed, so I considered that disruption. I blocked mainly for troll feeding, and it was an escalated block, but the TPA revoke was to help minimize disruption for the time being as well be part of the escalated block, because they have been bothering people in their talk page as well. 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You could eat less carbs, exercise more, I guess. It never hurts to be able to run a few hundred meters before without collapsing.  20:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can live with less spaghetti ^^' 20:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only run for 0.7 miles (1.2 kilometers) without needing to walk. Idk if I can do the 5K in May. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But if you run more, you can eat more spaghetti.
 * That or switch to the fake spaghetti made out of zucchini. Or spaghetti squash.  21:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mama mia, as if I don't run all day. 23:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Be a bit more assuming of good faith with people. In my eyes, mods should basically always at least offer a genuine "normal" response first, rather than a shitposty one when a user asks why you reverted something. If they respond to that with utter nonsense, sure, do whatever, but that's a suggestion I'd give you. In addition, given a recent incident ($), try to stay away from spite removing and protecting user and talkpages for no reason. Remember that a moderator's hand should be a light touch; only take the minimum amount of actions needed. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Juuuust in case it happens again (Israel-Palestine)
What will you guys do if RationalWiki decides to throw a, well, let's say an Israel-Palestine party again? I don't want a repeat of last time, and the discussion in this archive did make me feel a little uncomfortable, though it did fizzle out. What can mods do to promote constructive dialogue without appearing like they're siding with someone or the other and without having others accuse this of doing so? I've seen Bongolian notify users about the issue, but the playground insults did continue afterward. 23:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the recent discussion that you cite is all that disturbing. It's kind of strange that some users get so wound up about an uncontrollable situation like Israel/Palestine. This trouble is a consequence of the fact that many social justice crises have no real telos or end stage that appear to be attainable. The problems at the US Mexican border being an example of an intractable dilemma. It's no wonder people experience intemperate qualia. I would encourage participants to write essays expressing their positions. Progressives calling out one another over honest disagreements serves no purpose in any context. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an assessment that I find quite refreshing. The I/P event was very uncomfortable for the community and was not just limited to the bar, but spread out all over the whole site. Confining it to the debate and essay spaces is a good potential solution. Managing a mess like this one is one of the prime challenges for any prospective moderator and good ideas are always appreciated. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Ariel31459: pushing the warring parties into essayspace would have been a useful possible solution. Bongolian (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you also agree to moderate the essayspace a bit more heavily than normal discussion? I think I would pay attention more to it. 01:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a violation of Community Standards, or libel or threats, I don't see the need for greater moderation in essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah sure. What I mean is just, will you sit mostly in the sideline, but like check these essay pages more often than other pages just in case anything flares up, you'll be quicker to step in. 03:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the nature of the dispute. The warring parties could be forewarned to play nice and stick to their own essays. Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe a quick warning not to let things get out of control. If it does get out of control, topic bans are an option.  04:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think handled the situation gracefully; a reminder to not edit war over pages based on Saloon bar fights. The Bar is the place for discussions and I don't think we should stifle that. Personally when I think cases where users on the site ended up as being disturbing, my mind tends to drift to places such as the BLM discussions or the 2020 Dem primaries. Both of those resulted in users becoming extremely heated. I believe in the future, those discussions can better be held in debatespace, where they won't clog up the bar. I don't believe it's a moderators job to determine how to keep the Bar focused on constructive dialogue. At best, our goal with the Bar should be to prevent discussions from becoming excessively uncivil or off-topic. Light touch, open discussion within the bounds of the CS. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think handled the situation gracefully; a reminder to not edit war over pages based on Saloon bar fights. The Bar is the place for discussions and I don't think we should stifle that. Personally when I think cases where users on the site ended up as being disturbing, my mind tends to drift to places such as the BLM discussions or the 2020 Dem primaries. Both of those resulted in users becoming extremely heated. I believe in the future, those discussions can better be held in debatespace, where they won't clog up the bar. I don't believe it's a moderators job to determine how to keep the Bar focused on constructive dialogue. At best, our goal with the Bar should be to prevent discussions from becoming excessively uncivil or off-topic. Light touch, open discussion within the bounds of the CS. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Civility is the key. Whoever throws the first stone, in terms of getting really nasty and personal, should be the first to be punished. And that's regardless of what you think about that user's politics. And it would be a good idea to tell the party who hasn't been punished yet not to stoop to the level of the one that has. Spud (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

General principles
Thanks to all the candidates for running, and to everyone whomst has asked and answered the v insightful questions above. This is much more general, but I’m curious: if you were to summarise THE most important overarching principles that you think a Good Mod should abide by, particularly in the realm of solving/preventing/deescalating conflict, what would these principles be? How would you prioritise and apply them depending on the situation? Thanks. 15:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From previous elections, it seems that a light touch by moderators is preferred. Moderators are really just glorified sysops with a few special powers that don't get exercised that much. The main thing is to show a time commitment and show some skill in moderating disputes. Sysops themselves, if so inclined, can actually do many of the things that moderators do. Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly, it's to make sure that discussion remains civil enough to continue without either chasing away productive members or creating more drama for the Coop. 21:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good moderation requires good communication skills, assuming good faith. I also think we should practice refraining from sarcasm, swear words (context though), accusations, personal attacks, snide passive-aggressive tone, and focus more of explaining yourself with a good description and no accusatory tone that can make people go on defensive. Concede some of your points if needed, acknowledge the other person's views too, be humble, show humility, don't be afraid to apologize or admit you're wrong; try to validate their perspective if applicable; show that you're open to persuasion. Always remember it's not about winning, it's about learning about the other person and cooperating toward our ultimate goal: learning evidence, applying evidence so we can help persuade people to be part of an effort to fight and support policy that'll help themselves and others. Identify intellectual dishonesty as well as fallacies but don't be too keen in simply slinging out accusations without examples or application of definition; better to describe (to others) what's being dishonest or what's being fallacious and explain why. I think my priority so far is to just promote constructive discussion. If I step in with a short comment "hey please stop with the insults", I hope people will realize it's only to try to be civil again and it's not me taking sides or me giving undue weight to one side (again if like a pro-Palestine person was acting really rude to a pro-Israel person who was arguing in good faith and I personally disagree with pro-Israel, I to try to tell them to stop and hope I don't receive an accusation that I'm some Israel sympathizer, I enable human suffering, or I'm tone policing). 06:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh, cutting right to the heart of things of something I've thoughta lot about. Okay so, broadly - the main principles a Good Mod should abide by to me are: Assume good faith, don't bite the newbies, think of the bigger picture and abide by the rules (which on RW means "defer to the judgement of the mob"). AGF is a no-brainer; mods should be welcoming to as many editors as possible. I have severe personal disagreements with some of our editors here, ideologically and philosophically, but I extend to them the assumption that they're all here for the same reason I am, which is to make the site better. This to me also translates to preferring corrective punishments over punitive punishments. I'd rather have a user who is weak in one area stick with areas that they're not weak at (topic ban) rather than have to permanently ban them from the site as a whole. That creates an extra burden on me as a mod, but I feel that is needed. Don't biting the newbies is an extension of AGF, but it means that if a new user makes a questionable (rather than openly bad faith edit like Ken/Mike-esque spam accounts), I'd rather confront them and try to make them understand why said edit was questionable, rather than instantly assume the user should be permanently banned. Think of the bigger picture means that a mod should be aware of how the actions of the mob may ripple to future scenarios. For example, if we punish someone for edit warring, do their actions properly consist of edit wars? Does the CS properly reflect the nature of how we judge edit wars. The CS is our informal "guiding document" in how we expect users to behave and part of a moderators job (although one non-mods can also obviously do, but I expect it from mods) is therefore in my eyes to ensure that the actions we take on the site are properly reflected in the CS. In some cases that may also involve needing to propose changes to the CS if needed. Finally, abide by the rules means that you must be able to take all those previous principles and beliefs and be prepared to sometimes, just push them aside and follow the duty of the mob. I've tempbanned and sysoprevoked users I consider personal friends and whose bans I voted against; in the end a lot of RWs actions are driven by the mob and the mob decided that those were considered adequate punishments. A mod needs to have that capability of being able to detach themselves from a situation. Specifically, I feel like that is one of my strongest abilities. In my entire carreer as a mod, I've deferred from only one vote because I felt my judgement was being impaired due to a friendship at the time with the user in question. Otherwise, I've been able to push my personal misgivings aside and been able to detach myself from those to follow the CS. I believe having that clear ability to compartamentalize the duty you do as a mod and the duty you do as a regular member is one of the most important skills for an RationalWiki moderator specifically. -- Techpriest (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The most general principle should be, as has been mentioned already, do as little as possible to manage situations that are apparently not managing themselves. I would stress to new comers that getting along with at least some of the mob is really the only way to effectively contribute to the wiki. At any given time most users are unconscious of turmoil localized on any particular wiki page. When actual editing is involved, it is the moderator's duty to get a variety of users involved and see if they can settle the matter themselves. Moderators are not generally experts, they should therefore act more like diplomats. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. Don't think you're more powerful or important than you really are. Your advice should be of some value simply because you've been on RationalWiki for some time. But so should the advice of lots of other users who aren't mods.Spud (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought Rationalwiki was supposed to be rational...why is rationalwiki such a communist perverted trainwreck of woke doom? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer: Circular reasoning (apologies to User:CircularReasoning) tells us that communist perverted trainwrecks of woke doom are rationalist. Just look at Stalin apologetics (Lysenkoism), Mao (Cultural Revolution), Pol Pot (Cambodian genocide), and RW (Chicken coop). All hail! Bongolian (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a little fyi, if you can substitute "gulag" with "concentration camp" and if that sounds inappropriate that way, then don't use the "gulag" term. 04:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You can be honest with us...how many toilet-paper rolls did you stockpile during the first great COVID-toilet-paper riots? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't need to; being a bit more rural, my home already had 24-48 extra rolls in case of snow. I suppose that's one of life's minor luxuries that can only happen when you aren't living paycheck to paycheck.  21:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on those curry and chips you said you would post me after the last election. Did you get my postal address wrong? Do you think I should still eat them if they arrive weeks late? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the first election campaign during which I've ever mentioned curry. In my Board election campaign, I said I'd like to promise everybody who voted for me a chip butty and a bottle of beer but I knew I couldn't. After you, Shabiddo, pointed out that technically I could post those things to people who voted for me, I said that anyone who wanted them could get in touch with me after the election and I'd see what I could do. I was prepared to make good on that offer but nobody tool me up on it.


 * And although it probably wouldn't taste great, I think that a chip butty made at the start of September would still be safe to eat now, provided it had been kept in an airtight plastic container. Spud (talk)

If by some moral magic you could do the following without any moral/emotional/murder-like repercussions of any kind and you could push a button which would eject Donald Trump into space on a collision course with the Sun...would you press it right away, or let him know he can expect it to happen any time but he won't know when (maybe in 1 day, maybe 1 year). Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do it right away, no. I'll do the latter, and I'll probably put a reminder in my phone so my ADHD doesn't decide to spare him too. I love having that kind of power, maybe even coerciveness can come in handy. I could blackmail Trump like crazy with that button. I'd force him to volunteer for an immigrant shelter for instance. I'll have him buy me McDonald's too.... I could get him vaccinated and have his Twitter feed just be pro-vaxx propaganda. I could force him to eat more fruits and vegetables too.... But in the end, I'll hit the button anyway, because I'm actually extremely cruel in the inside. That insidious copy of Super Mario Odyssey, Luigi's Mansion 3, and Yooka Laylee (but here's a secret: The Last of Us is only a distraction from those aforementioned real sick games I have in my library) should've clued people in. Serves them right for not paying attention. What day should I press the button? I don't know, but I'm thinking about several days: February 17 (the day Limbaugh died, one day away from my birthday), Christmas Eve, March 10 (Mar10!), or October 11 (Mario's birthday according to Nintendo Power, page 96 in November and December 1988). The real catch is that it could be any of those days and any time of the year. Oh and I'll let you know that if I can't press the button due to some freak car accident, I already got that covered anyhow. 23:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If you could permanently erase a terrible book, TVshow or website off the face of the planet, the past and ensure it never emerged again in the future...what would it be? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I withdrew my nomination only a day after accepting it, but I still really want to answer your question. My first choice was everything Ayn Rand ever wrote, but then I remembered that some of my favorite songs by Rush would also be yeeted out of existence, so The Da Vinci Code is my answer, indeed. GeeJayK (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If Aquinas were an Atheist and had written a book called Summa Atheologica, when it got to the part in the book (around the middle) where he actually said the soul is not semen, what would he have replaced that part with? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure to be honest. Let me try to ask Dawkins and pray at Darwin's grave for an answer. I would, however argue, that due to materialist neuroscience, all of the body comes from the two gametes, and thus what the theists foolishly regard as a "soul" as well. 04:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that the largest pumpkin ever grown on Earth was in Germany and not in Kansas as is widely believed by the whole world? [ Shabi ]] DOO 20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. Perhaps our head chef would disagree on the grounds it was grown in Italy.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

When you eat fish-eggs on a salted cracker, do you prefer snooty caviar or the more down to Earth sea-urchin roe? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Squid Game overrated? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit to never having watched Squid Game. The concept didn't really interest me; I played Danganronpa a few years ago, the premise seemed too similar. Is it overrated? Like most things, probably a bit. Fans of anything can be zealous and when something gets really popular and has a lot of fans, the amount of terrible fans grows with it. Squid Game got very popular, so it probably has a lot of terrible fans who think it is the second coming of christ or something. I do like the visual of the playstation button masks and hoodies that has been popping up. It's an aesthetic I quite respect. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

How many mites might a billy-goat smite if a billy-goat could smite mites? Shabi DOO  20:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 42.-Flandres (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What's your stance on the infrared crusader priests from beyond comprehension and their grand cyborg enslavement project for all of humanity? Are you also from beyond comprehension, or from someplace else? What's the best way to deal with hordes of sneak deadly parroting puppets and their hangman-rope gangster playboy scum on-top and the brainwash signals relentlessly broadcast through worldwide concocted and manipulated computer god systems (including but not limited to Facebook)? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the best way to prevent this is to install TempleOS and become inured against the horrors of the internet by running a system on 640x480 like God intended. It's a covenant like circumcision. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Candidates who ork cows
For all who are coworkers anywhere, wouldn't it be better to elph cows instead of orking them? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

User since October 2019. Currently a sysop, tech and moderator.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Total no brainer. Brillian moderator Shabi  DOO  14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I thought about this for a awhile and am still thinking about the others, but techpriest has been a pretty good moderator over the last year. Don’t see a problem in continuing. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Already does the job. 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't have much qualms. We cooperated before, and I had good interactions with this user since probably the beginning. You still like shelled peanuts? It's not like I'm bribing.... 00:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still like shelled peanuts yes :p. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) She's new but she's good!-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) As a tech, Techpriest has been both technically proficient and versatile, in dealing with site updates, elections, chickencoops, and ATIM. Moreover, they have demonstrated a keen interpersonal intelligence, or business acumen, in managing complex sociological niches i.e. in managing not just RW, but also the discord servers, that is, communities that have varying goals, values, and rules. Techpriest has also shown good pedagogical acumen, in their efforts to inform RWickians of proposed changes to the site—changes that sometimes involve having to relay complex information in a more “bitesize” format—e.g., new sysop tools, new range block abilities that might now become available as the internet transitions to IPv6, etc; and of course, Techpriest has tried to keep RWickians updated on the status of the sites ongoing update. Finally, Techpriest has, over the course of this past year, exemplified more than most of the candidates, the temperament and qualities that a moderator ought to have—the ability to remain dispassionate and moderate even when engaging in the fray. They have my vote.  Leucippus Salva veritate 21:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Probably the best active tech we have and has proven himself a solid mod too. 13:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Has served admirably with moderation and diligence. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Conscientious. I like them more as time goes by.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) V cool and good, also knows what she’s doin which is Nice 03:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Someone I trust. Spud (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Definitely trusworthy. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

User since December 2019. Currently a sysop.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) I have no doubt Flandres would do a great job and make all decisions for the best interest of the wiki Shabi  DOO  14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) 'sport. 19:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Think this one has the right attitude for the wiki. We'll see how well this one does. 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Hello, my name is Mister Snrub!-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't know about the attitude, but I'll bite.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Seems sane and would make a good mod. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * Goat
 * 1) Not fully sure if Flandres is a good choice, but don't see any reason to consider them a bad one either. Feeling neutral here.-- Techpriest (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why Flandres isn't as good of a choice as any other non-incumbent in this list. Shabi  DOO  23:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have skepticism. For example, Flandres blocked User:🍳sexual, but only for 3.6 days without considering it was a disruptive username and should have been banned indef for that, especially considering the only edit. The fact they didn't consider that, IMO, is kind of alarming and is not good for a moderator. Andrew5 (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alarming? It's not a big deal if that sniggering generic teenager actually does wait out the pi days (most disruptive drive-bys really don't) and does, what, put generic mindless text that other generic teenagers do in a page that's easily reverted like all generic edits and then get blocked like other generic wandals again? Change the block to indef, no one is going to stop you. 23:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't, remember. Andrew5 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who doesn't have blocking rights in all wikis I edit, so what? Just wait for someone to come in and change the block, or just let the temp block be. We don't have a shortage of people that can do this. 08:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm agreeing with Techpriest here. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User since January 2015. Currently a sysop and tech.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) I have total trust in CorruptUser Shabi  DOO  14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Taking difficult stances is something needed of moderators. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) While I privately disagree with many of this users' reasons on a lot of arguments, they are levelheaded enough for the role from my experience with them. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) We've had our personal disagreements, yes, but you have to put those aside when judging a mod candidate.-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with him on issues often enough, but he's proven his fair mindedness during the past year.
 * Striking the endorsement out of spite, because Cory made a dicky comment about me. Probably will change it back to endorsement tomorrow. 13:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Shows courage in the face of adversity. The expository value of extended discussion is worth considering. Also, if you want newcomers then you should vote them in the earliest choices.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Occasionally crusty and cantankerous, but always acts in the best interest of the mission. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Momentary anti-endorsement because he was mean to me. 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering I was teasing over disapproval being suppressed, I'm not sure if this disapproval should be suppressed as well... 17:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) I think this user can maintain their cool in the face of adversary (GC had been antagonistic to CorruptUser) but I'm not recalling much instances where they actively tried to keep a constructive conversation. They do weigh in when there are coop cases and All Things in Moderation. This is working from memory, I'll probably evaluate their contributions at some later point. 00:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * CU usually helps maintain constructive conversations, as much as any other non-incumbent on the roster. Shabi  DOO  23:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User since September 2011. Currently a sysop, moderator and board member.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Total obviousness Shabi  DOO  14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Taking difficult stances is something needed of moderators. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I saute support. 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Biggest issue I have with him is that he doesn't talk enough about how amazing Taiwanese food is. 00:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Great mod, loved working with him in the past year. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) He constantly gets re-elected for a reason people!-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) He's alright I guess. Acegodfuckingdamnit 02:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Best editor and best mod. 'Nuff said. 13:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Has served honorably as a moderator. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Serious and non intrusive.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) Seems obvious to me. 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12) —   python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 17:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 13) A no-brainer. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements

User since April 2014. Currently a sysop and board member.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) The wiki has suffered long enough without LeftyGreenMario's moderating Shabi  DOO  14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Things will be better when she reclaims her rightful position as the Queen of RationalWiki. Spud (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Fairly levelheaded. 19:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Weakly. I was kinda torn because of certain things, but I decided to put them to the side and support this candidate. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's anything I can do then do specify. Not much help if I get "certain things". 18:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See above about BeardOfZeus. Andrew5 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) A no-brainer "right choice". Very good at helping newbies find their place in the wiki, assisting them when they stress out, pretty good at conflict resolution, generally is pretty good at remaining levelheaded and in general a pleasure to have been working with over the past two years. My biggest disappointment is that you didn't run in 2020, but I get why :p. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) She was a good mod during a pretty thankless time to be a good mod. That impresses me.-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) This board needs more Mario and decency. She has both in spades, and is only second to FCP in my list of favorite former mods. 13:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Served honorably and diligently as a moderator before. Would be a welcome addition. Bongolian (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Sincere and devoted to her POV.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Nice person, v reasonable, good at conflict resolution 16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 04:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) —   python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 17:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Kind, approachable, bigger picture in mind. I have nothing bad to say about LGM, nor any doubts. Kntai (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Did a fine job in a recent moderator stint, and would without doubt be an excellent mod once again. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements

User since March 2018. Currently a sysop and a board member.


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Pleasure to work with, provides good perspective on things. Would like to see as a moderator. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * Goat
 * 1) Got a quick scan - seems to have inactivity bursts. Other then that no qualms. I'll re-evaluate probably on November 7 when I lose an extra hour of afternoon daylight and I have nothing to do when the sunset is at 4:45 and I don't have reflective clothing yet...American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: GJK withdrew their nomination. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User since May 2014. Currently a sysop, tech and moderator.
 * Endorsements
 * 1) Don't see why I shouldn't. 05:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Natuurlijk, naturalmente, naturellement, natürliche, Φυσικά, eðlilega, естественно, doğal olarak, zvakasikwa, 当然, به طور طبیعی, স্বাভাবিকভাবে, ස්වභාවිකව, โดยธรรมชาติ Shabi  DOO  09:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Give me a reason to not vote for Bongolian; a model moderator and one everyone else can take notes from. Bongolian is a no-brainer to endorse. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Perhaps the best mod we currently have. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Why waste a good incumbent?-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Has long history of serving with distinction and I'm looking forward to seeing more of the same. 13:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Unrecognizable place without him.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Definitely one of the best. Spud (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Bongolian’s work speaks for itself: the volume of his contributions to RW across a variety of topics, over 7 years of experience on RW, and a consistent activity-level on the site—all of these factors warrant re-election. Leucippus Salva veritate 02:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Of course. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

User since November 2018. Currently a sysop and moderator.


 * Endorsements
 * Anti-endorsements
 * Goatdorsement
 * I don't think they'll made a necessarily bad mod but I do recall instances where they're a little too enthusiastic about blocking people. Back in January 2020, I did leave a comment there. Now, I don't know if it's relevant today, but unfortunately, earlier impressions do stick. 02:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User since April 2016. Currently a sysop.


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Mostly lurks; however I've observed nothing that would disqualify them for this role. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse you or even be neutral. Your activity levels aren't super good, you haven't even made any contributions throughout all of September 2021. And most of you're edits are to SB - I'd prefer to see more edits in admin-y areas or doing other things. You're last admin related action was nearly a year ago (check logs). Please get some more activity, especially in admin areas, and I will probably support you in 2022. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thank you for the otherwise encouraging words. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Goatdorsement
 * 1) I don't think you'd make for a bad mod since you're here for a while and you are never antagonistic to others but I'm not seeing much activity from you besides an occasional comment. 23:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have been monitoring the situation here almost every day for an hour or two. Besides writing articles there is not much to do here that the actual moderators can't or haven't been able to handle. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you'd be a perfectly reasonable candidate based on your edits if you showed more of a time commitment. Bongolian (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User since February 2019. Currently a sysop, tech and moderator.


 * Endorsements
 * 1) They're renaming skills are...amazing American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Hasn't abused mod rights so far, so, yes, good enough to be a mod. 19:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Did a satisfactory job as a moderator, but I always feel Rockford could try to engage with the community juuuust a bit more sometimes. 23:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have those feelings too. Andrew5 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I think Rockford does a good job. Nonetheless, I have something stuck between my teeth re: communication on a personal level. Kntai (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) A good moderator. As mentioned previously, more engagement would be nice. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) See above. Occurred to me to actually endorse. Kntai (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) No reason not to endorse. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements