RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive11

 2018 Moderator election schedule Nominations and campaigning ended: 16 November 2018 Voting is closed Started: 19 November 2018 Ended: 26 November 2018 Results were announced on 30 November 2018 We elected:  6 mods, 2 alternates 

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

Bongolian
My moderator ideals have been: Bongolian (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Don the moderator hat as rarely as possible. Most moderation activity can be handled by moberation, e.g., calling for a vote of sysops.
 * 2) Try to prevent coop cases: they can be a time suck. Nonetheless all moderators should try to participate in coop cases once they happen.
 * 3) Try to handle things with a civil discourse.
 * 4) Support fellow-moderators when possible.

DuceMoosolini
I'm very grateful to have been nominated to this position. I'm an editor and sysop here who is mainly interested in history, law, and war articles (see my userpage for more details). I'm an active user, and I regularly visit this site even when I'm not making significant page edits. Even when involved in some contentious debates, I have managed to avoid starting any serious drama and strife. (Although I did get cussed at by a BoN who's probably a Michael Coombs sock.)

As a moderator, I would emphasize fairness and the ability for people to change. I believe everyone should have a chance to say their piece so long as they're editing in good faith and can back up their claims. I seek to find solutions to the problems and squabbles we see here every day, and even as a mere editor I've put effort into finding fair solutions to deal with user drama, resolving disputes, and helping newer editors.

If elected, I really won't do much differently than what I'm already doing and have already done. I may get involved in disputes more often, but I firmly believe that an open discussion and an honest attempt to find common ground does more good than an immediate use of mod tools. I also pledge to follow the general will of the users on this site. As one may be able to tell by my frequent participation in votes of all kinds, I am no stranger to finding the will of the mob.

In short, I like Rationalwiki. It's an excellent place to discuss, learn, inform, and just have fun. I want to keep it that way and just possibly help make this place even better.

At the end of the day, it's the editors here and the site's mission that make moderator a position even worth running for. All I can say is, I'll do my best to live up to you. 19:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario
Plumbers for (continued) power.

I'm generally well-liked and trusted around here, and I believe that I've done a good job this year, my first year as a mod, and I was trusted enough to even be elected as part of the foundation members. I believe I'm perceived to care about the wiki, as I've worked my best with users here and I'm still one of the older users that still makes mainspace edits regularly. I don't think I abuse my powers. I have self-awareness. I've edited wikis since, like, 2010 (back in the MarioWiki days), never got banned for bad behavior, and even my experience here, I haven't really done bad things before I started establishing myself as part of the community. While I can get visibly frustrated, I also demonstrated patience and goodwill with other users and I hope those qualities are great for a mod but also someone who regularly edits the wiki. Mainspace edits for me are still in the 36.84% (2036 out of 5526 as of this post) despite project space (24.54%) (a.k.a. saloon bar) edits creeping up.

I do hope I can continue filling in the spot of the "quirky" user that Reverend Black Percy left behind (according to RationalWikiWiki, or whatever that site is) and I would be really happy to rename users I see fit sysoprevoke with pleasure again  collapse discussions don that sexy mod hat again. I also do hope to continue my work on this wiki and I still have plans to improve articles and create some more, as I still see a lot of coverage gaps.

I also hope I get to practice more civility. I admit I slipped a few times but I do hope we can establish a better framework to cultivate a less aggressive community.

RWRW
I would consider myself to be an anti-establishment candidate. I’m an outsider, but I’m a candidate for the people. I want to end the establishment’s monopoly over RationalWiki's governance and represent the people who often get overlooked.

Election Promises:
 * Remain active
 * Represent ALL users here
 * End political and ideological blocks/sanctions
 * Provide a level-headed approach to any disputes
 * Only use the Moderator powers/authority if absolutely necessary

Despite some initial opposition for me receiving the Sysop tools, I believe I have proven myself to be a power hungry maniac competent user with an understanding of the guidelines and rules here.

I welcome any questions or criticisms.

Let’s Make RationalWiki Great Again ! --RWRW (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Spud
Thank you for nominating me for election once again.

So nowadays, I'm what passes for Old Guard around here. I know there are a few users who've been here since 2007 that still see me as some kind of Johnny Come-Lately. But I've been a registered user since 13 September 2011, before the first Great Conservapedia Purge, and I've made as near as dammit at least one edit every single day since I joined. I've been a member of the Board of Trustees since August 2017 and a mod since June 2018 (following a resignation). My experience here continues to be an overwhelmingly positive one that has been remarkably free of drama. OK, I've received the occasional death threat but that hasn't bothered me. Like I always say, you need to be a bit thick skinned to be a successful wiki editor. And to be a successful wiki editor in any kind of position of power, you have to be very thick skinned.

I think it's true to say that my experience as an admin on nine other wikis, as well as my real life experience as the head teacher at a small private language school, have helped me to carry out my moderator duties calmly and fairly. Although I am prepared to come down hard on anyone who really deserves it.

During the last moderator election, I promised to translate some articles into Esperanto. I made good on that promise and have created one new Esperanto article a month since July. All but two of the articles in the Esperanto category were created by me.I plan to start work on my first Spanish translation of a RationalWiki article soon. I might also translate some articles into French. If I am elected this time, I will aim to continue to translate at least one article per month. And if I'm not elected, I'll probably do that anyway.

I think that RationalWiki has changed me for the better. Back in 2011, I probably wouldn't have recognized a logical fallacy if one bit me on the arse. I think my time here has made me more analytical, more skeptical, more accepting of others and, dare I say it?... more rational! For all of its flaws, RationalWiki is something with which I'm proud to be associated. Spud (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Rationalzombie94
If elected as moderator, I promise to bring a YouTube channel to make the wiki more noticeable.

DiamondDisc1
[Insert dramatic entrance here]

Everyone who votes for me gets a free diamond emoji and hug.

RobSmith
I am truly horored by this nomination. As such, I accept with great umbrage.

I was born in a log cabin with three brothers. As a child, my father used to end arguments by banging our heads together. This is an important lessen I've tried to apply throughout life. I'm still licking my chops after a hard fought Trustee election, and pledge to act with impugnity and arbitrary bipartisanship. My life is out of control, so I feel I can empathize with others. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 01:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Cosmikdebris
In my interactions with RationalWiki and its community, I've tried to always assume good will. My contributions here have been mostly involved in curating the archives and occasionally adding new content. I tend to keep a low profile, but I have very low tolerance for spammers and people who are genuinely unfunny or are harassing trolls. I'll always try to act in a matter that supports RationalWiki's mission in a respectable fashion. Also, I think everyone here deserves a free goat. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nerd
My guiding principle will be judicial restraint. I will be around just like another editor. I will only put on my mod hat when absolutely necessary. My goal is to help make Rational Wiki a welcoming and civil place for all those who want to defend truth and objectivity. I will assume of good faith unless proven otherwise and the discourage personal attacks and other forms of harassment. Nerd (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Scream!!
King log rather than king stork. See here
 * If it's relevant my first edit was on the Thirteenth of July 2007 before my relative took over my account.
 * My main reason for standing is to keep Rob out. Whoever nominated him ought to be excommunicated!

FuzzyCatPotato
i'm here to take up space on the ballot and prevent idiots/trolls from getting mod (Rob, RWRW). see also Scream!!'s election promises 14:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Candidate endorsement sheet
1. User since May 2014. Currently a sysop, tech and moderator. Nominated by Dysklyver.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Incumbent mod, has done an excellent job. 19:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I believe Bongolian has done a good job being a mod, overall, and is consistently a good editor. Gets my endorsement. 20:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Experienced and competent. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Ideal candidate. Shabi  DOO  04:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 09:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Active, competent, relatively impartial. 16:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Heck yeah.- 01:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Active, even-handed, and rational. Nerd (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Intelligent, level-headed, and has performed well thus far. 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) As close to an ideal moderator as one can get. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Stellar. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 10) ;Goat
 * 11) He's a bigot. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobs, did you suddenly remember that I anti-endorsed you in the Board election? Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I read your personal attack on me after I endorsed improving rules of civility. RobSmith Ivanka 2024!</sup 01:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This was not an ad hominem attack on you, I simply called you a troll based on the facts: 1) You don't edit mainspace articles in RW. 2) You spend an enormous amount of time editing Conservapedia. 4) You ran for office on RW earlier this year (and now again) based on zero qualifications. Bongolian (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At least I can resolve a dispute from a neutral stance, which is something you obviously can't do. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 02:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At least I can resolve a dispute from a neutral stance, which is something you obviously can't do. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 02:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

2. User since October 2017. Currently a sysop. Leadership experience: was fascist dictator of Italy from 1925 to 1945. Nominated by Dysklyver.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I'm the one who trusted this user with sysop tools, and the user hasn't disappointed since then. Good contender for a new mod and has a very good track record, given talk page and number and proportion of edits. Also, can probably give me some pasta during breaks, mama mia. 20:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Did well during the recent BP9 coop case, from what I can tell. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) DuceMoosolini has made many quality edits, and is level-headed. Bongolian (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Level headed, but also self aware enough to have a sense of humor. 22:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) We need some fresh blood around here.- 01:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Consistently good contributions here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) ;Anti-endorsements

3. User since April 2014. Currently a sysop and moderator. Nominated by Dysklyver.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Modded me in ways I absolutely didn't like. Still good.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wine harder, . 00:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey. If he doesn't like it, so be it. 01:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * *Whine. CowHouse (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely glad you're not running, CBF. No mod should ever take a "polite at the expensive of actual decency" position.  LGM was way better about trying to understand disputes.  I think they're still good at being a mod in spite of being on the "wrong" side of more than one judgement.  I don't know if that's high praise, exactly; but it's sure as hell something that matters to me, and reducing that thought to whining, is exactly the ham(burger)handedness that I don't like.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Incumbent mod, has done an excellent job. 19:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Good mod. 00:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Has a good head and a good heart, and has done well this past year. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Also ideal. Shabi  DOO  04:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) LeftyGreenMario has been an excellent moderator. She is very active, and has been temperate in handling disputes, often trying to keep things from escalating needlessly. I wholeheartedly endorse her for reelection. Bongolian (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Though we will never see eye to eye on every single issue, LGM has earned my respect for her honesty and integrity on most matters. 22:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's to be expected from two different human beings. I'm cool. 01:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Current mod, hasn't blown up the site, has good ideas —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 23:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Too awesome to not get re-elected.- 01:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I do not agree on some of her management tactics, but LGM has proven herself to be an excellent mediator who is committed to RationalWiki remaining rational. 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to think about what I've done to make you disagree. I think I can bite some criticism. Which ones do you have in mind? 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel that you take out the mod hat a bit too easily without letting users work out disagreements amongst themselves. Granted, I haven't been on RW a lot recently and it's very possible that this has changed. Like I said, though, you've overall been a good mod and I support your reelection. 02:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Has gone out of their way to accommodate newbies and ease conflict. Also, I really enjoy the humorous names LGM gives to the banhammered idiots who register with bad usernames. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Good choice. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) My endorsement has been approved from the gates of Hell by the video-game-playing hands of Joseph Stalin himself. Nerd (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's impossible. LGM simply cannot be more Russian than I am. 01:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Miss, I see that you have not listened to this. Nerd (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 2) Too inbred. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 10:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No way would you let someone from blasted California get a mod position, I'm guessing. 18:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I dunno; would you vote for this racist scumbag? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. What?! Nerd (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * inbred. Meaning his parents were probably cousins and this is the result. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 04:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Nobs! You combined two logical fallacies (Jerry Brown, non sequitur, and inbred, ad hominem) in once short statement: way to go for anti-campaigning! Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a "her" and also I thought RobSmith was talking metaphorically about my political views aligning RationalWiki a little too well. My parents lived in practically the opposite sides of Eurasia (France and Taiwan). My parents' relationships otherwise have little bearing on my qualifications and to accuse my family of incest isn't in good taste and is uncalled for... 20:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was disclaimed properly with use of the word "probably." Thank you for clarifying that your condition is not congenital Again, My apologies for any misunderstanding. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 21:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) This is simply too much for me to not bring up: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=renameuser&user=LeftyGreenMario&page=&year=2018&month=11 wanton abuse of renaming], "only be used on request or blatant harassment" my arse —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 07:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya gotta be kiddin'! These are all troll/abuse accounts except for possibly one. We don't need to preserve abusive user names. Bongolian (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I might be in the minority here, but I don't think that unilaterally renaming "Trannies are retards," or " DavidGerardisafaggotwhore" is a bad thing. In fact, qu noite the opposite. 21:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the policy on renaming, and, the community standards states, "Users can be renamed only if they request to have their name changed or if they have a patently offensive or intentionally disruptive name. 'Spoof' usernames (impersonating another user, usually) can be renamed unilaterally unless the spoofee expresses approval of the spoofer."  followed policy, so if you've got a problem with that, you should agitate for a change in policy rather than making an anti-endorsement on this point. Bongolian (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a time-honoured RW tradition actually. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure why you pinged me there, so I just want to clarify that I was supporting LGM in my comment. 23:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes I knew that. I just wanted to make sure you saw the policy since you were commenting on this. Bongolian (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair (though Kazitor's anti-endorsement for something I saw as an established precedent is not so fair), I'm the only mod who is renaming trolls left and right recently. 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

4. User since October 2016. Currently a sysop. Diarch in-exile of RWW 4.0 Nominated by RWRW.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) A good choice. 19:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I think the person has done a good job offering arguments and can see when discussions go out of hand. 20:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) I worry praise from me looks bad, but Ronin is a hard working editor, consistently kind and thoughtful, and in my mind very capable of the job. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) RoninMacbeth has made many quality edits, and is a good choice for moderator. Bongolian (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) A Mod who is willing to put their own flaws out for all to see, judge, and criticize? One would have to be a fool to oppose such straightforward honesty. 22:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Has my 100% endorsement.- 02:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) A great candidate. --RWRW (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) A good candidate and excellent choice. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Oui. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Was my right-hand man back on RWW. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes. "Science first."Ariel31459 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) An intelligent editor with great potential for being a good moderator. Nerd (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 16) Last person who used the term "soft power" was Hillary Rotten Clinton. Is "soft power" sticking a bayonet up somebody's ass like Gaddafi? Even Nazi War Criminals got a fair trial. Jezez Fuck, where do these Clinton clones come from? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 09:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So trying to use the banhammer less often means that I'm like Hillary Clinton in Libya? Great job, nobs, you've really outdone yourself. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. We're just identifying bullshit rhetoric when we see it. Civility can begin after the election, huh? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 17:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "We," nobs? Tell me, are you a king, president, editor, or person with a tapeworm? Your accusations of incivility ring hollow considering how you began this conversation. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I ain't the one who said my inspiration came from a Clintonism. Maybe you don't realize how offensive your smugness and carelessness is to some people. Are you capable of empathy? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what nobs? You're right. Sometimes I don't think about how other people might be affected by my behavior. If you were negatively impactec by something I did or said, then I apologise. This campaign of mine is to try and discourage a "ban first ask questions later" attitude I often had, by pledging to be better. And if you want to help with this, to make everyone here a better person, why don't you run? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

5. User since June 2017. Currently a sysop. Nominated by Dysklyver.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Some may disagree, but countering groupthink is not a bad thing, actually. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it makes this person more eligible for mod. Mods don't carry any extra clout when it comes to opinion. Their job is to resolve conflict. I do not believe this user needs sysoprevoke or mod hats to do the job to counter groupthink. 21:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A case could be made that there being a conservative-leaning mod can contribute to more balanced conduct when ideology is relevant to the conflict. Of course, given the wiki's general left-leaning stance, it's not unreasonable if the users decide such a "balance" to be undesirable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A case could be made, but you know, if you actually made that case it'd come with a lot very real problems. Like questions of exactly what it was you were trying to balance, and maybe whether all the pseudoscience, conspiratorial ideation, and hard authoritarianism tied in deeply modern conservative philosophy are the cause of that "slant" on a wiki devoted to you know, dealing with those things.  You know, those are all very important questions that could hypothetically get asked if anyone actually pitched this hypothetical case for balance.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of conspirational ideation, you come off as pretty paranoid. Slippery slope much? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Love his anti-bigotry stance. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 09:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 3) It goes without saying in our modern era that people claiming to be non-partisan the loudest are some of the most intolerably noxious fucks in that exact regard. That this user is quite possibly specifically an active troll is, well, something you should pay attention to.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You got facts to base your hypothetical bias on, Mr. Science? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 10:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have yet to ever meet, among the hundreds of self professed centrists I've met, a single one who doesn't gleefully attack the left and ignore huge infractions by the right. It's not scientific, but come, on, show me the "balanced" individual who doesn't give way too much credence to pseudoscience and bullshit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's something wrong with your methodology. Maybe your "self proclaimed centrists" are rightists intimidated by left-wing violence, or maybe they're leftists embarassed by Leftwing nuttery? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 17:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, just a fucking week after a right winger gunned down a dozen people based on a far-right conspiracy theory, you have the unmitigated gall to whine about "left wing violence". This is exactly the kind of "centrist balance" we can't have.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the Obama people spewing anti-Semitic hate. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 18:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW I would like to clarify that I'm not running to try and bring about a "centrist balance" to the Moderation team. I'm running because I feel I'm up for the job. --RWRW (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe rob isn't the best self-appointed defense attorney. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) RWRW is mainly here to share contrary opinions in this wiki (note that contrary opinions aren't bad, but also note the user using slogans and phrases that mirrors Donald Trump's populist pandering and is based on lies; there are far better ways to offer disagreement) while also riling up other users (1, recently). This is reflected in the bulk of this person's edits being in Saloon Bar (most mainspace edits are very minor or just reverting wandals). This behavior has been established since the first days when this user tried going for more parodist comments. I've never seen this user demonstrating behavior that is fit for a mod either. Yes, the user has sysop tools, but I don't see a need or a desire to give this user any additional tools. 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What a pile crap. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 10:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I am anti-endorsing RWRW, not on ideological grounds, but on the fact that he has made many inconsequential edits and no substantive mainspace edits. This in my view constitutes a lack of commitment to RW and its purposes. He is obviously an educated person, but he has not made any contributions on libertarianism, monarchy or Trump, fields in which he is known to have at least minimal knowledge. Bongolian (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Giving some of the highest user rights available to someone who at one point indicated an intention to instigate a coup d'état based on ideological positions is literally one of the dumbest things you can do, right up there with electing Trump or shooting yourself in the crotch with a flamethrower. 17:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) RWRW is here not to genuinely improve RationalWiki and improve upon any blind spots we may have because of our political inclinations, but to whitewash the site and transform it into a political puppet. Do not vote for them. 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A simple read of my candidate propaganda would show you that isn’t true. —RWRW (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I strongly feel like this user isn't qualified to be trusted as someone who will cease conflicts and will serve only to further exacerbate them. If the only thing going for them is that they offer a different political perspective rather than as someone who can maintain the wiki, that is not someone qualified for the job. 21:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Nyet. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) no 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Despite not being a full-blown troll like he used to be, still hasn't really shown to be a productive user. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) ;Goat
 * 6) Wait, what? Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Letting non-destructive contrarians spout off on Talk pages is fine. Giving them mod tools is not. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) I wouldn't endorse any user whose contributions to the site are just polemical debates. No notable writing articles, no gritty editing articles, no relevant additions to WIGO links etc, no notable website maintenance, no helping users, no upkeep, no "things to do" actually done. It doesn't matter where any candidate is on an irrelevant political spectrum...when does problem-solving ever have to do with left vs. right as opposed to being a dick vs. being constructive? That and a complete inability to relent or admit in the slightest that he may be even just a tiny bit wrong. This makes dispute resolution almost impossible. Shabi  DOO  04:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to stay away from my critics, in order to avoid any disputes, but I feel I do need to call yours out. Firstly I am happy to admit that content creation is not my strength, but I would dispute the rest of your statement. Firstly I often contribute to WIGO, with my most recent addition being less than 1 week ago. Secondly I have got a good amount of experience helping new users. This includes troubleshooting their problems for them and the standard welcoming/assigning user rights. As for the wikis upkeep, I am always helping the wiki by fighting spam. --RWRW (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that I said "no notable" and "no relevant". You've just used words like "always" and "good amount of experience" and "often" and yet when I look at the logs and in two cases the number of contributions you made which I can count on my hand...I ask myself...does RWRW have a reasonable concept of what notable and relevant and "good amount of experience" mean or perhapd I've misunderstood those words my entire life. And even if that were all true...I still see no evidence of a person ever willing to relent or compromise or find a consensus. Shabi  DOO  13:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the fact I changed my username and deleted my short-lived political party following community condemnation is proof that I am willing compromise and find consensus. --RWRW (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

6. User since September 2011. Currently a sysop and moderator. Nominated by RWRW.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) A good choice. 19:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I would trust this one with tools. Most comments I've read from this person are pretty reasoned (though I often agree with him). And given his age, I'm sure he's mature enough to get tools too. Has a great track record too, according to the userpage. 20:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely yes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) "Rationalwiki made me a better person." HA! You get my vote for saying that with a straight face. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 10:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Spud is an excellent choice, who has made many quality edits and has demonstrated his moderation skills. Bongolian (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Incumbent mod, seems to be doing a good job --RWRW (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong candidate. School is cool! Nerd (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Intelligent, level-headed, and fair. A great choice! 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Incumbent mod who's done a fine job here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Certainly. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) 👍- 05:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) ;Anti-endorsements

7. User since January 2014. Currently a Sysop. Nominated by Dysklyver.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Seems like a cool guy, is enthusiastic about the wiki. 19:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I've watched him grow up since he was a pup. It's his willingness to listen why he has such a promising career ahead. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 03:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) ;Anti-endorsements

8. User since May 2016. Currently a Moderator and Sysop. Nominated by RoninMacbeth.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Has done well for two years now, see no reason to stop now. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) The Man, the Myth, the Legend, DD1. Keep him around. 17:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) I just realized that they're currently a mod. High praise.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) DiamondDisc1 has been a good editor and moderator. Bongolian (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) The Slaughterer of the Stubs. 19:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Don't recall ever interacting with DD1, but he seems do be doing a good job. Don't need a hung but a free diamond emoji sounds pretty cool.--RWRW (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Good choice all around. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) I like Los Angeles-class hunter-killers. Civil and intelligent moderator. Should be kept in that position. Nerd (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 13) ;Goat
 * 14) You need to kill more stubs. 01:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) You need to kill more stubs. 01:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

9. User since 2009. Currently a Sysop. Nominated by Dysklyver. I see that you're correct about nobs's mainspace edits,, and I overstated my case above. The point that I've been trying to make in the past election and this one is that candidates should have made edits on mainspace pages that demonstrate commitment to RW purposes. Editing on political pages as Nobs has done doesn't do that. Nobs hasn't edited on pseudoscience, authoritarianism, or fundamentalism pages unless as far as I can tell unless one counts Saudi Arabia. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Long-term user here. His commitment to bipartisanship is what this Wiki needs and I think he'd be a fantastic Mod.--RWRW (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 4) Lol. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Thank you BoN 141, you have summed up this nonsense in a nutshell. Calling Rob impartial or bipartisan, is like calling a bomb diplomacy. I mean for fuck's sake, at least be honest about your biases!! 02:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Just like RWRW, RobSmith lacks any commitment to content editing on mainspace. Even worse than RWRW, RobSmith spends much of his waking life editing Conservapedia. Bongolian (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) I didn't antiendorse RWRW simply because I think he's a cool enough guy to not be a horrible mod. But this? No. Just...no. 03:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Idiot. 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) I don't see how giving this person mod tools provides any benefit to this wiki. Callous for no reason, posts are usually full of nonsense, most people are annoyed by him. He's not good, even for the sake of balance. I'd rather have someone else play Devil's Advocate than him. 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Herpadingaderp, everyone says everything that's needed to be said. We're not looking for people who have different political views. We want someone who's reasonable and is least likely to abuse the tools. Considering that he's being there just for the sake of a balance fallacy, that's grounds to be unqualified for the role. 21:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) I could theoretically see RWRW as part of the moderation team, since he seems to possibly be a good-faith editor. I cannot say the same for nobs.RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) no 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Not mod material. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) No. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Nobs cannot be trusted with power whatsoever.S.H. DeLong (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 16) ;Goat
 * 17) Come on, mainspace edits have nothing to do with your bias. Rob (and indeed myself) could have created 50 gold-rated articles and you'd still find a reason to anti-endorse . --RWRW (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * nobS actually has a somewhat considerable (non-recent) amount of mainspace edits under his belt. But the idea of him modding on RationalWiki is frankly hilarious. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been through this argument before in the 2018 board elections in which RobSmith was also a candidate. 1) Mainspace edits are important in demonstrating competence with regard to understanding the content of RW. Understanding the content of RW is necessary for resolving disputes. 2) Mainspace edits indicate a commitment to RW that Saloon Bar and talkspace edits do not. You can say just about anything unreasonable that you want in those areas as long as it's not malignant.
 * With regard to RobSmith, I asked him to give examples of his mainspace edits to two broad categories of RW pages, just as I did below here. He only came up with a single pissant edit in Saudi Arabia, a topic I might add where fundamentalist Christians like himself are rather likely to agree with RW positions. The question remains as to why RobSmith spends countless hours editing Conservapedia mainspace articles but almost no time editing RW mainspace. The simplest answer is that RobSmith is trolling us. Bongolian (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited Saudi Arabia, cause it's one I'm most proud of. I'm not in the habit of boasting about my many accomplishments. I made significant edits, improvements, and creations to the entire series of Islam-related articles, Daesh, Zarqawi (which I created), Shaheed, Sharia, Zawahiri, etc. I made significant and everlasting contributions the FNMA, Gold standard and other economic related articles. I'm just citing these off the top of my head. Recently I hijacked the cp:Linda Sarsour article and inserted into CP verbatim, as it fits in nicely there. I couldn't think of a better example how even-handed and well-rounded ability I have to measure diverse viewpoints and covertly work to find common ground. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 03:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A Conservapedia article plagiarizing RationalWiki? Lol, I think hell may've just frozen over. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As to "understanding RW content," I think it's been demonstrated in the Q&A section below politics overrides science on both sides of the Atlantic, and few people might I add, have as indepth perspective of all viewpoints as yours truly. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 03:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If I may digress on a personal point. Generally I try to avoid mainspace editing on broad ideological subjects (although I feel capable of adding content in some instances). I prefer to stick to factual, historical and biographical evidence and examples. There's little I could add right now to RW's totalitarian and fundamentalism pages to improve RW's mission other than historical miniutea (in RW's economic pages I see brilliant scientific and philosphical opportunities however).
 * Even at CP, I've constantly resisted behind the scenes pressure to get involved in editing projects that are solely on ideological conflicts. Very recently I did feel the need to begin drawing the distinction between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism - which are long-term projects. The pages were both complete messes. The body of research materials behind both is enormous. I wish to God I had assistance, but after 10 years they still have not caught on to notion of collaborative editing over there. So right now, in keeping with the CP's homeschooling mission, I'm trying to keep it simple enough for a pre-adolescent middle-schooler to comprehend. There's a lot of judgememt calls and picking-and-choosing in what's going to become a subject of enormous importance. I feel tremendous pressure, but the job has to be done. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 19:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * RW has the identical problem as CP - defining Democratic Socialism. So far I've come up with three different definitions : (1) used by Lenin's opponents; (2) what North Korea calls itself; and (3) what Bernie Sanders calls himself. This is obviously too overwhelming for CP. It's my hope to find collaborative editors at RW to sort through this mess. Even Wikipedia has a pile of crap on this important issue facing the 116th Congress. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 21:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

10. User since August 2012. Currently a sysop. Nominated by Cowhouse.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I trust this user with mod tools. I believe this user demonstrated good judgement and has a decent shot. 22:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Of course. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) ;Anti-endorsements

11. User since February 5, 2015. Currently a sysop. Nominated by Dysklyver.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Trustworthy and capable. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Being special.- 05:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Refreshingly intelligent.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) I believe Nerd would make a good moderator based off my prior interactions with him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes. Bongolian (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Yeah, pretty nice user despite some disagreements. 01:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) ;Anti-endorsements

12. User since 24 March 2011. Currently a sysop. Nominated by Dysklyver.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) yes 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Would make a good moderator. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) ;Anti-endorsements

13. User since 9 June 2013. Currently tech. Nominated by RoninMacbeth.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Mainly for the meme value. Bring back our Supreme Commander! RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Per RWRW's reason to anti-endorse him. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So you think it’s a positive thing for a candidate to run purely to spite others? Do you find FCP’s laziness in n his propaganda a good reason to endorse ? Or are you trying to spite me too? —RWRW (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not spite to prevent people you think would do harm with mod powers to get them. I might have some spite for Nerd or Ariel, but for you it's just a complete absence of trust.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Although FuzzyCatPotato has been inactive lately, he has demonstrated strong commitment to RW. For example, he has made extensive edits to important pages on racialism, fake news and Holocaust denial. He is also responsible for making many edits across the logic and logical fallacy pages. As a previous moderator, FuzzyCatPotato has demonstrated fairness and incisiveness. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Has a good track record as moderator here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Trusted class of 2013 alum. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) One of the most deserving candidates. I'm gratified that he decided to run as a vote where every candidate wins by default, is a very dubious outcome to (not) look forward to. Shabi  DOO  21:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 02:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) We need to defend freedom and truth everywhere! Nerd (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Yep.- 20:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 9) Strong oppose. States in his statement that his only reason for running is to deprive others of the role. Described me as a “idiot/troll” which is categorically not true. Also too lazy to write his own campaign promises so rips off Scream’s. A terrible candidate and a nasty person. —RWRW (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also admits he’s inactive. —RWRW (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-HCM Coops
Earlier this year, we discussed the issue of frivolous coop cases, or rather, coop cases that are not really HCM. How would each candidate handle such cases in the future? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For cases that clearly aren't Coop worthy I would remove it (without archiving) and take it to the talk page of the person who stated it and Ping any other users who were involved. Whenever possible it is better to settle things outside of the Coop to avoid any drama. Out of curiosity, is there a link to this previous discussion? I don't recall ever seeing it --RWRW (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me check, it was a few months ago. But yeah, that's what I'd do as well. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Have mods come to an agreement (and also decide to archive or not), but in obviously frivolous cases (like the one where the person had a technical problem with RationalWiki), delete, no archive. 18:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect the coop-initiator as necessary, then archive the case. Here's one that I did recently: RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive71 Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy to tell when a coop case is just a waste of time. I'd wait for another mod to agree with me and then delete it without archive. If necessary, I would follow up on the poster's talkpage. 18:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understood it, we had decided that if somebody puts something in the Chicken Coop that really doesn't belong there, it's OK to just remove it. Contacting the person who put it there and any other users involved might be a good idea. It would depend on who those users were and what was put on the coop page. But thankfully, we haven't had many really serious coop cases recently. I think that the fact that most coop cases can be concluded quickly is a good thing for all involved. Spud (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't like to vaporize anything unless absolutely necessary. Many of the non-HCM coop cases are easily moved to a more appropriate case and all the affected parties notified. The truly frivilous cases should be deleted. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If a moderator considers a Coop case to be frivolous, he or she should obtain an opinion from another moderator. If they concur, the case can be thrown out. Nerd (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Past edits
These are specifically for and, but other nominees are free to answer. Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Give an example from your past edits that shows your ability to moderate.
 * 2) Give an example from your past edits that shows that you support for RationalWiki's purposes for each of a) pseudoscience and b) authoritarianism/fundamentalism.


 * I’ll happily answer this. I believe shown my ability to moderate in the case of WWW’s indefinite block. It was my belief that he should not have been blocked indefinitely so I sought a resolution to this. I must stress that political bias had absolutely nothing to do with this, as when I unblocked him I clearly stated that his unblock was temporary and I was quite adamant that should he re-offend I would deal with him personally and I would support any decision the Coop made.
 * As far as proving that I support RationalWiki’s for purposes for pseudoscience and authoritarianism/fundamentalism, that’s slightly more difficult. I have had very little to do with pseudoscience-related issues and I don’t have much intention of getting involved with it. I have never expressed any fundamentalist points of view (I am Christian, but socially I’m pretty liberal) and I wholeheartedly agree with mockery and criticism of fundamentalists. I also don't support authoritarianism, and consider myself to be a libertarian. If I was to be elected I would 'govern' in a libertarian-style way, where I'd only get involved and 'don the mod hat' if absolutely necessary.
 * I think the best evidence that I support RationalWiki is the fact I stuck around for 18+ months. If I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t have stayed. --RWRW (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, . Can you explain why you have never edited the Libertarianism page? Have you any substantive edits to any libertarian-related pages? Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have substantive edits to any libertarian-related articles. The reason for this is I'm just not that good at content creation. I feel much more comfortable doing the behind the scenes adminy work. --RWRW (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So really what you're saying,, is that there is no evidence that you've actually changed your views since January 2018 when you had this statement on your home page: "I wanna make RationalWiki great again. I will drag it kicking and screaming from the clutches of the liberal left. I will rid this Wiki of the evil CNN style FAKE NEWS and provide honest, decent information provided by upright conservatives." Why did you delete this from your page history, RWRW? Could it be consciousness of guilt?
 * I have always been forthcoming with my views. If I still held the desire to change the foundations of RationalWiki, I would have talked about it in my candidate statement. In my eyes, the fact I removed all that from my userpage was the is all the proof you need to see that my views have changed. --RWRW (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't proof. It's evidence that you don't want people to know that you said that. Proof would be in the form of substantive mainspace edits, of which you apparently have none. Bongolian (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Almost everyone here is a Sysop and can easily view the history of my userpage. I was encouraged by you (and others) to turn away from that style of thinking and I followed your advice, I am slightly surprised that you would hold that against me. If I restored the deleted versions of my userpage would that make you happy?
 * As for the mainspace edits all I can say is we can’t all be brilliant content creators. I have created 1 article and updated several UK politics-related pages but don’t expect me to create gold-rated content any time soon. I would argue that it would be a positive Moderators to be more focused on the behind-the-scenes work anyway. --RWRW (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this question is worth answering for me as well. :1). I have included links to examples in my opening statement posted above. :2). I'll admit, I'm much more involved in the authoritarianism/fundamentalism side, but I have posted ridiculous stories concerning pseudoscience on the WIGO-Clog page, and my Scramble for Africa article delves into the origins of many varieties of racialist pseudoscience. As for authoritarianism/fundamentalism, I have numerous examples of edits I have made and pages I have created, many of which may be found on my userpage. 18:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

tbh dude I haven't been active in ages. I can't pull up edits off the top of my head and frankly if you all would prefer that I withdraw from my nomination then no worries. Moderation? I mean best evidence I guess are my block logs. Authoritarianism/fundamentalism/communism? I don't remembering making any such edits, so I guess at best you'll just have to take my word for it that I don't support these in any way, shape, or form. 21:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Professionalism
not so much questions, more requests. elsewhere, codes of conduct are being discussed and their haphazard implementation. for this reason i would like to see a lot more professionalism within the role. for starters, moderators need to be visible. its not obvious where to find the list of them, so a link in the sidebar? and something in declaring your status in the your sig, which should be in the same format as the other mods. no fancy individual sigs please. secondly, when intervention is required, when and how, needs to be a lot more consistent. if there isnt already a manual of some kind to allow mods to be working from the same page, then we need one. sticking with consistency there should a log of moderator actively. it would help if you can check to see how things were previously dealt with, the results, so decisions can easier be made that are not dependant on how you are feeling that day. Earlier intervention with a lighter touch. much is made in the above campaign about how you would deal with things when things go pear shaped. it should not come to that. much can be done with a quiet 'cool ya jets' here and there than a clunky, seemingly arbitrary intervention when everyones already worked up. talk to each other. if you dont chat once in a while, to see what you each been doing, what looks a problem, its difficult to stay on the same page. some basic procedures and standards are surely gonna make your life easier when dealing with us malcontents. i realise the nature of campaigning makes this difficult, but it doesnt fill me with confidence to see any pledges for radical changes and shaking things up when mods need to be doing the same things as before. if they need changing, thats not the mods job. nor is claims about how you are different or stand out from the rest, unless it shows how well you'll maintain standards, then your rugged individuality and anti establishment credentials say you shouldnt be a mod. think civil servant not member of parliament. this is all a big ask, and maybe not something doable here, but its what i think is required. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should change the color of links to moderators in the recent changes? I want mods to have a place to discuss with each other as well but I don't know where. I have to use my own judgement for a lot of mod hatting I'm doing and I don't like that and I'd rather come to a consensus with other mods. 18:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like most of these proposals. Mods have an important role to play, so being more professional about it isn't unreasonable. Since I'd be new to the job, I'll naturally maintain active communication with other mods. I especially agree with your assessment that earlier and lighter interventions would do more good than jumping in late to slap everyone down. And while I'll certainly keep most of the theming that makes me unique, I intend to make it very clear that I'm a mod. In the meantime, I'll see if we can expand our current attempts at a courtesy guideline into building a new set of mod guidelines as well. 18:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What hypothetical scenario would necessitate a lighter intervention? 18:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just think that it might help this site's toxicity problem if mods were to check up on ongoing disputes and possibly try to gently defuse them if necessary. Hopefully, a more active and soft approach like that might prevent things from spiralling out of control to the point where users are calling each other fascist shitfucks. 19:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @lefty the mod manual/guidelines i'm suggesting would be for answering that - comprehensive guidelines and best practice for spotting and dealing with things before they escalate, visibly and consistently, so folk dont feel victimised or rail roaded. i dont envision this as a policy document (though some bits probably should be) but as a work in progress of recorded experience, added to and amended as necessary. as i understand it mods get no help beyond experience and few of us are here long enough to build up enough of that. its what i would want if i were a mod. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Guidelines, that's exactly what I want. I need something to work with to help me mod better and help me be more consistent. That, and I feel like I'm alone a lot of times when trying to moderate discussions. 19:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * its a thankless task. and frankly its a disgrace that there isnt really anything to help you already. its not good for the mods, volunteers if i need reminding folk, its stressful, thankless, and if you care about the job as you clearly do, at the sharp end when things go south. and its not good for the site. my suggestions might make moderation a less casual affair, pr9obably putting some folk off, but you'd actually  be able to do the job wih some support and protection. putting some or all of it into place might be a slog though. what does wikipedia do? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Welll I'm not on Wikipedia, but I've been an admin in one forum and something higher than "regular" user in another wiki. And I know a little how MarioWiki works despite not being admin/mod there. What they all have in common is having private discussion threads that deal mainly with users that misbehave, and admins discuss how to deal with, come to an agreement, and then they impose whatever that has been agreed on. Now, before people get suspicious of "private activity", we can maybe do something different, such as show logs of discussions. But I'd imagine private discussions have their benefit being that a decision can come more smoothly and there is no disruption while a conflict is brewing. 20:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * i honestly couldnt say how to put any of this in place - my lifes a little too shambolic to put the effort in i'm afraid. and as a side note, from reading your replies at the all things in moderation page, i apologise it looks like i was having a dig at you or any of the other moderators. that was not my intent. its more the whole process of moderation here is just not fit purpose. anyone doing the job is hamstrung from the off. i try to be direct and concise for the sake of clarity, but sometimes look like an arse, like here. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I didn't perceive you digging at moderators. I think you can do a lot worse. 20:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like most of AMassiveGay's suggestions. Creating a lot of those changes would be a job for techs rather than for mods. But they would be changes I would welcome. Putting a link to the list of the mods in the sidebar shouldn't be too difficult. And requiring all mods to have signatures that clearly state they are mods could also be introduced easily. I would certainly welcome greater cooperation between mods and I would like to see a page set up for mods to have regular discussions among themselves. A private page that other users can't see (to avoid offending any other users we might discuss) would be good. Failing that, just a page that only people with moderator rights can edit (although everybody else would, of course, be able to see it) would do. Spud (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a good discussion. There is reason to believe that 6 people will not have exactly the same world view, ideology, schemata, etc. So rules for conduct to maintain order are necessary for consistent moderation. Some, like Thanos, might prefer to execute the half of us. If so, we might as well get it over with. New moderators should just vote on their own rules of decorum and publish them.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not that complicated, really, to discern intent from an editors postings. Is an editor trying to advance a viewpoint or seek resolution and compromise, or are they focused on trying to rally a lynch mob against a particular user and point of view? Where it becomes difficult is, if someone is advancing an absurd position is flowery language. It can be amusing, but trolling nonetheless. Here a judgement call can be made with a warning to stop fuckin' with people just for kicks. But lynch mobs should not be tolerated, especially when disinterested parties get involved just to lend support to a friend.

I suppose the job of Mod, in consultation with other Mods, is determine when a legitimate Coop case exists. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 17:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , and , Wikipedia indeed has some carefully laid out guidelines. In particular, please take a look at their Community Standards for harassment and dispute resolution. If we are to be taken seriously, we ought to minimize toxicity. We should not appear as a bunch of opinionated jerks sitting in a corner laughing at and insulting people we dislike. Nerd (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Prove your commitment to science over politics
Which side of the Atlantic practices pseudoscience, the US that allows genetically engineered foods, or the EU that bans it? Both claim science as the basis for public policy. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 10:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be out of date but probably enough to prove Rob's request as a false dilemma. 13:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * According to RW, "the very high level of anti-GMF activity in Europe and the fact that only two GM traits have been approved for local cultivation.... results in GMF being basically impossible to buy." Why doesn't science have the political clout in Europe that it has in the US? Why do EU scientists cowtow to protectionist, nationalist, and anti-free traders who keep US agricultural imports out? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 16:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, a fascist superstate has been in control of Europe all this time and I didn't even notice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Look at the contrast. Americans, dominated by rightwing evengelicals who believe in YEC and reject evolution, have used science to produce and certify GMF. Whereas the enlightened Europeans cling to racist and nationalist sentiments to smother science and global free trade. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 20:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone with a modicum of sense is not going to try to make out that one side of the Atlantic is scientific and the other side is pseudoscientific. It would be foolish to deny how much of the modern world has been shaped by scientific and technological developments that came out of North America. There are also cranks and loons all over the world. Thankfully, so far, right-wing Christians have not had anything like the same influence on politics in Britain or other countries as they've had in the States. But it doesn't do to be complacent, snigger at those silly Yanks and just think, "It could never happen here." Spud (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited the genetically modified food page several times in the past, mainly to undo bad edits. If you don't have a problem with the page as it stands now, it should be good enough evidence. Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How come European scientists have supported racist anti-global, anti-free traders who deny entry of American agricultural products with labelling laws? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not racist to say that something shouldn't be imported from the United States. And if they were scientists, rather than politicians, I'm sure that they were certain that there were sound scientific reasons for their decisions. Spud (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, US scientists say GMF is ok, EU scientists say no. Which ones (or both) are bowing to political pressure, and which ones are practicing pseudoscience? RobSmithIvanka 2024! 00:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, both are bowing to corporate pressure. In the US, from Monsanto. In Europe, from non-GMO European companies. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That they are both bowing to corporate pressure sounds accurate to me. But also two groups of scientists disagreeing with each other doesn't necessarily mean that one group is practicing pseudoscience. Spud (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"corporate pressure" is cover for saying "politics" or "the state." Science bows to politics, which means science isn't actually science at all. Or at least not pure science. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 04:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more often that "politics" is cover for "corporate interests", in my experience. Though if corporations are the true 'political masters' one could make a decent argument that it's a distinction without a difference. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , here is a more up-to-date map., as my Comrade implied, very few countries ban genetically modified food outright. The major difference in policy is whether or not labeling is required. Nerd (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a more up to date map. 04:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Free ponies to all users?
Not "will you?", because of course you will. But when? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest here. Any person who has access to free ponies would keep them all to themselves. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I could never see all the fuss about ponies. I can offer puppies though, right in time for Christmas. --RWRW (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All I can offer is high-quality Italian food. 17:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a digitized character, all I have are the digitized ones. 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can promise to post a picture of a pony from Wikimedia Commons on the talk page of any user who requests one. Just put a message on my talk page saying that you want a picture of a pony. I'll put that picture on your talk page as soon as I see your message. Spud (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like a tight race. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If something is "free," then it is "free" to the recipients, not the ones paying for it. Thus the question becomes, "Where do those ponies come from and how are you going to pay for them?" Then there are the logistics of getting ponies to their recipients, assuming they are willing and able to raise them properly. Nerd (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My sentiments are elected officials trying to buy voters is equally as corrupt as special interests buying elected officials. Nuff said. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 17:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a bunch of tightwads. Also as I said, you're supposed to discuss not if, but when.  -10 points for reading wrong.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Will they be regular ponies, or OMG PONIES? Peyre (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can only promise pictures of regular ponies to any users who request them.Spud (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * made a most reasonable promise. Won't somebody think of the logistics? Nerd (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Handle edit wars
How would you handle edit wars? To be more precise: "take it to the talk page" doesn't work if only two users are involved and if they are clearly in complete disagreement. Since the intervention of other users is necessary and might take much time, there should be a general rule that establishes which version of the page must be kept until a consensus is reached. Otherwise, both the users in disagreement are incentivized to keep reverting each other edits, since apparently the last who edits wins. -Lankaster (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The point of saying, "take it to the talk page", is not just to get the two users involved in the edit war to discuss it with each other. The idea is that other users join in too. If nobody else is joining in the discussions, post a notice in the Saloon Bar to ask more users to join in. And I would say that, generally, the version of the article presented to the public should be the article as it was before the current edit war started, ideally a version before either of the users involved had edited it heavily. if the edit war began because one of the users involved removed content from the age, that content can be commented out until the problem is resolved. Spud (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The version that should be protected until the issue is resolved is the version that existed before the moderator got there. As for how I would handle edit wars, if I noticed one I would call a vote for which version should be accepted and post the difflinks so that users can see what exactly they're voting for. If anyone changes it before the vote, I'd revert and modlock the page until the vote is completed. 3-4 days later, I'd see how the mob has voted and implement the chosen version. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spud. If an edit war breaks out, involved parties should move to the talk page or be strongly advised to do so. If there is refusal to do so, the mainspace page should be protected by a moderator. As Spud indicated, the talkspace discussion allows all interested users to weigh in with their opinions. If there is insufficient interest from the community at large to voice opinions on the matter, e.g. with new pages, the Saloon Bar is a good place to ask for more opinions. Moderators should be regarded as arbiters of last resort even if they are only weighing in initially as sysops on the talk page. As a last resort, a coop case can be made of this issue. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're really at an impasse, I think a talkpage vote on which version is preferable would be the way to go. I also think resetting the page until the squabble has been resolved is a good idea. 21:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When is a "squabble resolved"? When three users working 24/7 survive a lone user who dies of exhaustion? RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 04:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a common scenerio that plays out in a number of edit wars on this wiki. There is a trend to "call out" people for specific behavior. So far so good. Newer editors often try to make texts consistent with empirical evidence, or suggest less pernicious explanations for the behaviors subjected to disapprobation, only to be reverted by the Snarkists (users who want to maximize ridicule). Does it seem problematic for a moderator to advocate for the Snarkist view in a Wiki ostensibly representing a wide range of opinion? Do you think this is the default position of our current moderators?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Disapprobation" is a hell of an eye roll. Next you'll call it "censure".  People can not like changes by new editors, and revert them.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, does the wiki really represent a wide range of opinion? In the sense that RationalWikians are all over the political spectrum (mostly to the left, sure, but then there's people like nobs and RWRW), it does. But in the more accurate sense that the wiki advocates for rationalism, skepticism, and anti-authoritariansim, we don't really represent that wide a range of ideologies.
 * With regards to the "Snark" vs. "Science" debate, I hope that my position on that topic is clear. If it isn't, I believe the two can often coincide, but snark is unnecessary and I wouldn't mind if it got removed in favor of better-written, better-cited information. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would temporarily lock the page and encourage the people involved in the edit war to work things out civilly on the associated talk page. The key is to reach an agreement on how to improve said article. Rational Wiki is not about "winning" or waging ideological wars. Ad hominem attacks are never acceptable. If they somehow fail to reach one, I will ask them to give the revision they prefer and ask fellow editors and moderators to weigh in. Nerd (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Recently, it has been pointed out that many personal attacks have been permitted, and that it is not clear under which criteria the moderators permitted them and, on the other hand, intervened in an isolated case. Also, it has been raised the proposal of limiting personal attacks via a new policy, but the idea has not gained traction. '''How would you handle personal attacks? Do you think that the cited situation was handled correctly? And if not, what would you have done?''' -Lankaster (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it is best to ignore personal attacks. I was always raised to believe that if somebody says something obnoxious to you, it speaks a lot more about Ithem than you. However, if an account is created for the purpose of trolling and launching personal attacks then they should  be blocked. I have to admit that I didn't pay much attention to that discussion, but it seems like the community came to the right conclusion voting down the proposed personal attack policy. --RWRW (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the blocks against TheDarkMaster2 as alluded to in the link provided by Lankaster: TheDarkMaster2 was blocked multiple times by multiple sysops for multiple reasons. No block was longer than 3 days. TheDarkMaster2 has not made any positive or substantial contributions to RW. Regarding a general policy, as I've said before, ad hominem attacks are wrong and should be discouraged. Personal attacks that rise to the level of harassment or doxing warrant blocking, quite possibly a permaban. I do not however support a complete ban on name-calling when it does not constitute harassment. Bongolian (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think any ruling on personal attacks is circumstance-dependent. In many cases, personal attacks are understandable, such as when another user and I got into a fight with an antisemite conspiracy theorist on GC's talkpage. That being said, I'm not at all averse to telling people to cut the shit when necessary. 21:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As a woman of great stature once said, "Incoming flak means you're near the target." Alternatively, sometimes you just have to suck it up. Ultimately context must be reviewed. If an editors postings consist largely of attacks on another user without furthering discussion or seeking resolution of a dispute, it crosses over into trolling. There are limits. And yes, certain attacks are out of bounds. RobSmithIvanka 2024! 01:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still of the opinion that being a RationalWiki editor isn't for everybody. If you're easily offended, editing here probably isn't for you. As I've also said before, things have changed a lot since 2007 and i don't think we've seen the last of this discussion on personal attacks. But at the moment, I am opposed to a blanket ban on personal attacks. Obviously, there's a difference between personal attacks from regular users who are trying to further the mission of this wiki and personal attacks from vandals and trolls. And obviously there's a difference between calling someone "stupid", a "liar" and an "idiot" and calling someone a "stupid woman", an "Australian liar" or a "Jewish idiot". But I still think that the occasional personal attack is something that you have to put up with if you intend to be a RationalWiki editor. Spud (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The civility reforms are basically a DON'T BITE THE NEWBIES proposal. We should always be welcoming of newcomers, until they adjust and learn to have fun in a more relaxed atmosphere. Psychotic bigots who get their kicks out of abusing people however is why RW decided a long time ago the need for Mods. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 17:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

While it is true that one should grow some thick skin and brush off personal attacks as they are more telling of the attacker than the attacked, we should not tolerate toxic behavior that discourages people from coming here, reading and improving our pages. We should not allow some jerks to ruin our project. If you must criticize, do so politely and constructively. Your position is weakened if you cannot support it with facts and logic. Nerd (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions for Nobs only
Bongolian (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't you think that you're campaign slogan, "''Grab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod!" is rather homoerotic given that 1) You're an unapologetic Trump supporter. 2) Trump notoriously exhorted B. Bush to "Grab em' by the pussy!", so you're riffing on that. 3) You yourself are presumptively male and you audience (RationalWiki) is mostly male?
 * 2) Were you being literal in your campaign statement when you said, "As a child, my father used to end arguments by banging our heads together."?
 * 3) Do you consider yourself a Biblical literalist or do you think that The Bible is inerrant?
 * I'm going to need proof that RW's audience is mostly male. I would be rather surprised by there being a significantly different level of readership between men and women, at least relative to overall usage of wikis. 23:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like everywhere I go on the internet has a male majority in general, tbh. Maybe I'm just speaking as some idiot that plays Mario games. 23:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If this anything to go by... 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we're mostly anonymous here, there's no real proof, but the self-reported 2017 RationalWiki Community Survey showed that more than 70% of self-reported responses were from cis-males. Bongolian (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at that survey and holy shit, I'm surrounded by white people. 20:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny how Fuzzy counted "atheists" and "athiests" separately. Not saying he's wrong. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * hey, it's not my fault you haethans cant spel (also see the barchart section ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Religion_denomination_barplot.png ) for a more rigorous breakdown). 16:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions for FuzzyCatPotato
Given how you are only running to attempt to deprive others from winning, and given that only today you described yourself as "very inactive", why should people vote for you? --RWRW (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * so that you don't win. to voters: rank me 3rd-to-last, right above Nobs and RWRW (or don't vote for them at all, so they get no partial votes). 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you have so much contempt for me that you would stand purely to prevent me doing well? Do you consider what your doing to be spiteful and malicious? Why does RationalWiki need a “very inactive” mod? --RWRW (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)