RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive15

Bongolian
I've been a moderator since 2017, in internet years that's ages, so I'm primarily running on my record. Two things make being a moderator easy: having civility guidelines and having moderators who are not at conflict with each other. I've been privileged to work with some very good co-moderators over the years. We have a lot of good candidates this year, so people think it's time for me to retire as moderator, I wouldn't take it badly. I'm quite willing to continue in this role, however. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Spud
Well, here we are again. It's been one of he quieter years that I can remember on RationalWiki. That's mainly been because the community decided not to give third, fourth and fifth chances to trolling arseholes that didn't deserve them. Something I wholeheartedly approve of.

Since I have seen quite a few names around here recently, I guess I'll have to go over some of the basics again. Although I've long since come to terms with the fact that the genuine old guard will never accept me as one of them, I created my RationalWiki account on 13 September 2011 and I've made as near as damnit at least one edit on average every single day since then. Frankly, I'm buggered if I know how I ever got to be as respected and popular as I am around here. But I'm not going to complain. My time here certainly has been remarkably free of drama. The only dramas that have involved me in any way have been the ones that involved just about everyone on the site at the time. The only users that I can remember having anything really bad to say about me were the shitstirrers who came here with the intention of destroying this site from the inside. Well, they're all gone. RationalWiki is still here and so am I.

It's fair to say that RationalWiki has made a much greater impact on me than I've made on it. I've always been a liberal but now I'm a genuine woke SJW and I don't care who knows it. I always try to make sure that anything I have anything to do with in my personal and professional life is completely free from any kind of hate speech, woo, pseudoscience or logical fallacies. If it hadn't been for RationalWiki, I never would have pleaded with the owners of the school where I taught to take the creationist children's book The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible of their shelves or stolen and destroyed that book when they refused to do what I asked.

And I will never forget how the RationalWiki community was there for me when I needed a shoulder to cry on. It means more to me than I can say.

So, if I am reelected, I pledge to continue doing what I have been doing, since you seem to appreciate it. That is check the site at least twice a day everyday, deal with any trolls and vandals swiftly and with the minimum of fuss, give out whatever helpful advice I can to newcomers and weigh in on the issues of the day at the Chicken Coop and the Mod noticeboard. And if I'm not reelected, I won't complain. I've had a remarkably good run. And I'll do all that stuff anyway. Except I'll stay away from the Mod noticeboard, unless I'm invited.

By the way, since starting my new job as a research assistant at Chang Gung University in June, I've been involved with research into improving education for primary school children, developing a mobile phone app to get teenagers and young adults to eat better, developing a mobile phone app to get people over 65 to eat better and developing a mental and physical health program to try to prevent older people from falling. I like to think I'm doing my little bit to make the world a better place. Spud (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Flandres
This past year, I've strived to be gentle but not negligent, operating with a narrow view of my own authority. While I have strived to intervene when necessary I have also done my best to avoid abusing my powers to sustain frivolous complaints. I have tried not to exploit my status to force my opinions on the community when I am clearly in the minority because the community is ultimately sovereign. Have I succeeded? You will ultimately be the judge of that!

While I would love to wear the laurel wreath another year I will not be mad if it goes to another. I would just like to advise my successors that our mod duties are simply noble servitude.-Flandres (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Plutocow
I'm aware I'm an underdog in this race, given that I have been here the shortest out of everyone running (at the time of writing though I have been editing as an IP since at least 2019 so there's that) and I'm up against a lot of strong competition, but still, I believe I am a worthy candidate for this position. I may be a bit polarizing sometimes since I'm not afraid to make my often strong opinions known, but I have done my best to avoid petty drama and resolve disputes through ATIM. I already check Recent Changes and the Filter Log every day to keep this wiki clean of spam, so activity shouldn't be a problem. I also have a lot of mainspace contributions, running the gamut from category maintenance to new articles. If elected, I will not take any drastic action unless it's done by consensus or if there's an emergency like someone abusing sysop powers, and even in the latter case I will take the minimum action required (like handing out a short mod protection or temporary sysoprevoke) until a solution can be found. These past few months have been relatively free from major drama, and I'd like to keep it that way. So, if you think I'm the right enby for the job, vote for me! Or don't, I understand that I am relatively new and there are a lot of good candidates this time around, more than there are slots for. But still, I'm honored for the opportunity to run for mod. Plutocow (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

CorruptUser
I've used my mod powers minimally and have on only rare occasion used my authority to tell a knucklehead to settle down. When it comes to disputes, I attempt to put aside any of my own opinions on a subject and interpret the rules as they were intended; I do my best to remain as impartial as possible. I've done that on more than one occasion; I've voted for/against people I don't/do care for based on whether they actually did something wrong, not because I liked/hated them. I've also built a couple additions to the site (articles for demotion, and I think the SB polls), though your mileage may vary as to how useful they are.

If not elected, I'll continue to use my tech powers to create more easily-solved problems with the edit filters help keep the obvious vandals down to a manageable level. 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Rockford the Roe
'Sup bitches, it's Chad Warden. Since the last election, a lot of things have happened in both our dying planet, and my personal life. In the world "My" country regressed back to 1972 with the inevitable death of Roe v. Wade and a boring old democrat being president, Elon Musk finding out after fucking around, Kiwi Farms finally being held accountable for their bullshit, the overdue MediaWiki update, and a furry winning against Starbucks (yes, that actually happened). While those things were going on, I started my college transition program, reevaluated my personal beliefs, washed dishes for $15 an hour, and gained and lost friends. I do not think those things have affected me from maintaining order on the wiki, and I'm still surprised I managed to pull thru while those were happening. Some editors have confused me as being a moderator with how I use my tech rights, which is why I'm running as a mod to fix this confusion. The role policy has forbidden me to use my tech rights for moderation, but I have done so unknowingly as there was some inactivity from other mods. I want to continue to do said moderation like I have, so I need to be elected as a mod to keep the book happy. That's all I really gotta say, and remember to be ABAP, Always Ballin' as possible.

(We fly high, no lie, you know this, BALLLINNNNNNNN!)

[TL;DR - I need to be demoted to use my rights for moderation]

16:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

OnlySortaDumb
I promise as moderator to use my power sparingly and to fall back on the judgement of my fellow moderators in most situations of conflict resolution, rarely relying solely on my own judgement except in the most egregious and uncontroversial of cases.

I would like to have Ratwiki strive for a level of quality that ensures that the quality of our articles reflects the quality of other skeptical media such as Skeptoid, and Science-Based Medicine. I will not make any dramatic enforcements to make this a reality as is not the duty of moderation — but I will take the stance in edit conflicts that our preference for contentious empirical claims should reflect the best available evidence and that any/all unsourced controversial empirical claims be flagged for citation or be removed.

I will firmly take a stance of political pluralism ensuring fair representation for political stances deemed unpopular on this site so to ensure in our criticisms of certain ideologies we do not base our criticisms in strawmen - if and when such edit/user conflicts occur. I will still fall back on my fellow moderators for many of these decisions regardless.

I also will draw a line at outright bigotry/hate speech. Disagree with any social policy you want; progressive, reactionary or otherwise. As soon as the slurs get thrown around, or people get denigrated for being a minority — I will express zero tolerance, full stop. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

GeeJayK
Some commitments:


 * I will not abandon this site or abdicate during my tenure unless the mob wants it, or else I have a very serious IRL problem.


 * I will not omit when the site is under stress.


 * I will gladly help anyone in need, no matter how small the problem is.
 * I will call responsibility when necessary (see this case, for instance).

Some qualities I think I have:


 * I'm generally a very patient and friendly person, but I don't mean to be lenient with trolls.


 * I don't mind dealing with petty drama (that doesn't mean, of course, I like it though, I'm just used to it).


 * I believe I'm bold enough to act and say the truth when it's needed, but I also think I have, on average, a good judgment.


 * I've been on the Wiki business for over 15 years (though I'm still a noob in some aspects).


 * I've moderated every kind of online place you can think of, from obscure prog rock forums to Facebook groups with thousands of users, hence why I don't mind dealing with drama.


 * I think I'm good at group work.


 * I really like and care about this place and the people here. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario
Hello! It's-a me! I'm happy to be an incumbent and potentially serve another year. During my years here, I've generally stayed out of being center of contentious conflicts and made my best to mediate those that are ongoing. It is with great pleasure that other moderators recognize my competence as well as the general userbase who have successfully voted me in in the past elections, with some even deeming me as their favorite moderator. As a moderator, I will stay active and monitor discussions like usual. I do monitor talk pages on mainspace semi-frequently (see my edits on those talk pages). Please also take a look at how I do a run-down of people's criticisms of pages. I've made a comment even to a user I've deemed a troll criticizing mostly their poor job at editing a wiki page and writing prose rather than their politics. While I do welcome disagreeing viewpoints (such as expressed in Talk:Rent control, Talk:Islamophobia Watch, Talk:The Babylon Bee where I discussed with people who disagree with me while also not entertaining trolls who defend transphobia), I will exert my moderator powers only when I deem comments and conversations immediately harmful and too problematic go without comment (usually if they violate our community standards such as discrimination against sex, gender identity, religious affiliation, race, mental ability, and so on). Otherwise I will leave warnings and will also first bring up moderator discussion to first gather a consensus. I will always express and encourage sensitivity for how minorities feel and will listen and accommodate to their concerns if any aspect of discussion makes them uncomfortable. I still prioritize light touches, however. I never block people out of anger or frustration, always resolving to first start discussions in respective talk page. I am also a very active moderator, frequently checking in days and will make needed comments and opinions when I can.

That being said, I'm aware of my flaws as a human being and I always concede and hold myself accountable if substantial people have believed I've gotten carried away with anything.

Also, I do lend my experience to others when they need it; I provide help, advice, and support for people new to wiki editing, helping one user get unblocked from an edit filter mishap while also interacting with them on their talk page as well as responding to the helpful comments they've brought up on mainspace talk pages.

I am also able to edit mainspace page with many years of wiki editing experience under my belt. I've made the following contributions over the past year to show I am dedicated to combating misinformation online through several substantial contributions as well as creating dinosaur denialism.

Finally, as moderator, I will promise to continue renaming the usual usernames to the usual nonsensical stuff. However I am aware that the tech status exists just in case people don't want me anymore.

Please vote me to continue promoting wokeness and love for Mario in RationalWiki.

RWRW
Hi folks.

I was a moderator for about 2.5 years before resigning last year, in part from fatigue from RW-related drama. I’m happy to say that my break from monitoring ATIM and the Coop has refreshed me somewhat, and I am happy to serve again if the community will have me.

If elected I pledge keep a close eye on the ATIM and Coop pages, use mod powers as sparingly as possible (deferring to the community whenever I do), and to be impartial when mediating conflict.

If not elected I will challenge the result support those who have won, then continue to contribute to WIGO pages and contribute to the Saloon Bar in instances where I have some knowledge or interest. --RWRW (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

KarmaPolice
I hearby promise, if elected for some unknown reason 100% of my screwups shall be due to my own incompetence, laziness and/or tendency to be distracted by shiny objects, not due to maliciousness. I have no plans to join Discord due to my fears that hearing my glass-cutting accent shall make you suspect I am not of 'the people'. And I shall continue my work by being asleep while most of the userbase is here, thus improving my abilities [in other fields]. I assure you all, my powers shall go used sparingly, mainly down to the reasons I don't know what they'd be and even if I did know, I have almost nil knowledge on how I'd be able to use them.

So... why did I accept the nomination? Because I believe in there being actual choices in elections, that's what. Someone needs to be the baseline, the Vermin Supreme, Lord Buckethead or the Boggle-Playing Chicken. You can't have an election where there's a 60% chance of winning. Well, I've done my bit and reduced that chance to 54%. Huzzah! KarmaPolice (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Question for Plutocow

 * How would you handle another situation like 2friedeggs if it occured, if you were elected mod? Andrew5 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That question is kinda a moot point, since the situation escalated when that user (this may be technically violating my iBan, but since there's an overwhelming vote for removing it I don't think it's a big deal) unilaterally removed my sysop rights and blocked me, which is something that can't happen now that I have tech rights let alone mod rights. Still, I would mod protect any disputed pages until the situation is resolved on ATIM, and if things get really bad (like if a user is unilaterally removing sysop from other users multiple times) then deal a temporary sysoprevoke of one hour or less until everyone calms down. But again, the fact that ordinary sysops can no longer mess with my user rights means that a situation like that won't happen again to me at least. Plutocow (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW I believe it could still happen to you, or any other tech/mod. According to special:usergrouprights, only sysops have the ability to unblock themselves. Of course techs and mods can demote themselves to sysop if promoted, but not when blocked.
 * I don’t believe unblocking yourself was always a separate right, so perhaps this is an oversight from when the site was updated. Christopher (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's stupid. That should really be fixed, considering if a disruptive user gets sysop rights they could potentially disable the entire mod team. I guess my backup account with sysop rights will have to suffice for now. Plutocow (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not even the only issue with the current user rights, there's another that even threatens account security, the kind I can't actually share in public. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If there’s a serious issue you’ve spotted then you should let one of the people with the ability to fix it know - your best bet is probably.
 * You could propose a change yourself on GitHub, but that’d make it public knowledge in the mean time. Christopher (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Already did yesterday, we talked over email. It affects a (I think) very small minority of people in RW, but it should really be fixed. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to avoid being sucked into such a protracted argument next time? The mod pages between you and egg dude go on for ages. 21:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, regardless of whether or not I can unblock myself, being able to protect pages to stop edit wars should prevent these situations from escalating. Plutocow (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To me that's also concerning - that sounds like an abuse of moderator powers to try to win a dispute. What I'd prefer to see is an ability to discuss calmly, and I am still not convinced of that yet. Andrew5 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not to "win" a dispute, it's to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control so it can be resolved by ATIM. My disputes with 2friedeggs were originally about disputed edits, but because the situation spiraled out of control both times the original reason for the dispute was lost in the fold. If the pages that were the source of the dispute were protected, then a better solution can be found (remember, the first incident ended inconclusively and is technically still unresolved, but I don't think anyone, myself included, wants to revisit it). Plutocow (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand. Also, I'm gonna throw shade at Andrew5 and just say, don't be too concerned with his opinions on things here. You CAN lock a page if a situation calls for it. I had to modlock a page to resolve a dispute because GC was being graphic and being defiant of my own blocks to try to stop him, if I recall correctly. That's usually last resort stuff though, like basically if you anticipate a sysop or two are going to continue disruption by unblocking a moderator-imposed block, that's when you lock. 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you really "the shortest out of everyone running" Plutocow?
I'm only 5'2 (157 cm)!! 03:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also are the batteries inside your lamp are just begging for a salad made entirely of cows from Pluto? 03:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "I have been here the shortest out of everyone running", I think the wording is clear enough that I'm talking about my time on the site. I don't like revealing personal information online, but I will say I am taller than you are. As for the second question, I'll just say you may need a better English-Hungarian phrasebook. Plutocow (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm messing with ya with your word choice. And it's no surprise you're taller than me haha. If it was English-Hungarian translated 40 times back and worth, then WHAT was the original Hungarian? I wonder. 03:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Question for all candidates

 * When are you guys gonna post some propaganda? I want to see some statements and campaign posters, dammit! 21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Soon. Spud (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, give me a couple of hours, I'm exhausted right now. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm late and I beat you to it. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I plopped my bongos down. Bongolian (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Who takes shrooms or used to take shrooms? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I drink beer, me. Spud (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have tried. Cannot recommend from personal experience except perhaps in a controlled/therapeutic setting. Bongolian (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The only shrooms I take are on pizza. 18:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have taken magic mushrooms a few times in my life when I was in my early twenties and late teens. They are currently decriminalized in my area of the world. I can order them in the mail if I wanted, or even go to a dispensary for them downtown. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that a lot of moderators had a very large aversion for harsh punishments for long time troublemakers in the past. (People like GR or nobs for instance). What would be your limit where you go "Okay, this is unacceptable, we need to do something about this"? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * punishment is not what the mods are for and their opinions/votes in coop cases carry no more weight that yours or mine, and their votes were made as regular users not in their capacity as mods. they are there to try to maintain relatively civil discourse and keep a lid disruption from disagreements. policy on just what is acceptable and what punishment might need meting out is the job of the mob not the mods. AMassiveGay (talk)
 * My metric on voting on long-term and longer blocks include CS violations (depending on the severity; for instance outright transphobia that I catch would be immediately an ATiM case at minimum), history of escalated blocks, history of contentious chicken coops.all things in moderation discussions,, long-term toxicity, a severe drain to moderate, and so on. I know I'm a little faster to vote longer blocks than most mods, but I'm usually not alone in the opinion even if it's in the minority. 20:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost all of nobs' existence on RW was pre-civility standards. Nobs advocated violence against democracy (J6), so that was the end of the road for him. Mods can influence the discourse, so in that sense may carry a bit more weight on punishments, but ultimately it's the mob that matters. Bongolian (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Gay and Bongo. Mods aren't the arbiters of punishments beyond emergency, urgent situations; bans are up to the community as a whole.  18:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Question for RWRW

 * Will you be leading an armed mob to effectively coup the wiki if your seat is stolen? Vee (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * His seat was sold by him, he is trying to steal it back from someone. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun; count me in. 22:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vee Certianly, contingency plans are already in place. Anybody that doesn’t think there wasn’t massive election fraud in the moderator election is either very stupid, or very corrupt! --RWRW (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Question for Spud
I have always thought of you as a good moderator, and I still do. However, do I understand rightly that you believe this wiki should inspire the destruction of library books for any reason? UncleKrampus (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Only as a last resort.


 * I pleaded with my bosses to take the book off their shelves. I told them it was pseudoscience and pseudohistory. I told them it was beautifully illustrated, and therefore exciting and seductive, pseudoscience and pseudohistory designed to fill kids' heads with garbage. They didn't care. I offered to buy the book off them. They wouldn't sell. So I stole it. They never knew it was gone.


 * A few months later, I found out that another book that had been in the school since I arrived, Dinosaurs by Design by Duane D. Gish, was not, as I had always assumed it to be, a book about making models. I stole that and destroyed it too. They never missed that either.


 * A few years later, security cameras were installed all over the school. I didn't half cop a load of shit for taking five pieces of A4 paper out of the photocopier. Spud (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What if all books harbored a nest of spiders. 06:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a genuine bibliophile, I'd hope there would be a way of getting rid of he spider problem without destroying the books. Spud (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Question for KarmaPolice
You only made one admin action: blocking a Kensock on October 31. How would you intend to become more active in administrative tasks if elected mod? Andrew5 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vermin Supreme August 2019.jpg
 * I think he'll don the boot hat when necessary. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The great bit about that is that due to my geographical location and normal hours of activity, most of the urgent admin tasks shall be done quicker by people who aren't currently asleep. Howevever, I suspect that might be a bit of a bonus if KenBot snorts some ProPlus and does another of their spam-a-thons. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Still, IMO, the best mod we have. Andrew5 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate that particularly because I've blocked you at times. Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked my most recent 50(!) blocks/unblocks (I have 154, somehow) and noticed that 3 of them were from you. I remember the Richard Nixon one, that would've been funny if it wasn't at my expense. Honestly at this point every mod has blocked me a bunch. Andrew5 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) A strong incumbent. Plutocow (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Good dude. 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I do not really know anyone else here but I know Bongolian is a nice and helpful person ^^--A p r i l Chat? 05:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Good mod, competent. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Amazing mod,he manages this site very well. ---Edward the eight (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) --RWRW (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Has everything going for being an excellent mod. Has the mainspace contributions to help distinguish himself from the rest of the group. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Can not think of anyone more on top of things around here. Also does a lot of labour fixing my articles lol. I do appreciate it loads though. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC).
 * Yup, best mod. 19:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) If Bongolian can deal with my shit and not lose his rag then a fine moderator he is. Acei9 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Competent, sane, stable as a rock. There's nary a complaint about Bongolians assesment of situations and I think he's more than capable of providing fine modship. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) One of our very best. Spud (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Not great moderation. Also stable is bad idea for current RW, needs new faces FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki already tried chaos; it was not pleasant. Bongolian (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) A strong incumbent. Plutocow (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Good dude. Too bad he eats weird British shit though. 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) No reason to not endorse, good user. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) At first I didn't endorse do to a percieved dearth of activity, but now I realize I was the one who went inactive. No more qualms. Andrew5 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) A very good moderator. I would support even if he offered me chip butties. Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) --RWRW (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Also very good mod. Was a great pleasure working with throughout my lifespan on the wiki. Dumb British person though. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) I respect him. 19:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) An all round good chap. Acei9 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) The man. The legend. Can't find a better choice. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Doesn't seem to have issues FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Go forth and moderate. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Did a satisfactory job as mod last year. Andrew5 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Really like them, definitely a great candidate. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) A strong incumbent. Plutocow (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Good dude. 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I wouldn't mind. Made some really well-thought out comments and liked their mediating a few conflicts back in ATIM. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) No problems 20:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Enjoyed working with him last year. Decent mediator. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) I looked back on coop and ATIM to see how mods handled disputes and I loved your way of handling disputes with people like GR. You don't take shit. Good mod. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * thats an interesting take. i seem to remember flandres as one of the parties in disputes with gr. he wasnt a mod then, so wasnt relevant, but would not have been 'good modding' if he were, taking a clear and unambiguous side. mods should remain were possible neutral. to be clear, they have have done so as a mod, its just strange to those events and flandres's part in them as good modding or handling of disputes. they did nothing wrong back then, but they were not a mod back then. flandres has been a good mod because he has not been party to such a dispute as a mod. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Yep. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Has my trust and support. Spud (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Doesn't do enough to limit or supports overly-inflammatory article content FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Probably the best candidate we have, fantastic work. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Incumbent? 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Plutocow has not been a moderator, so not an incumbent. Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, brain fart. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) The 2friedeggs incident is obviously a red flag it isn't the only problem. While there was nothing wrong with Plutocow's proposal to permaban USHA, their edit summary was a bit uncalled for, mainly the Since it looks like Spoony is going to continue to be disruptive part of it. Even from a year ago, they were taken to ATIM for "super aggressive blocking" by Techpriest  where one concerning block was brought up, this one. Even avoiding ATIM, Plutocow's talk page has lots of aggressive behavior on it. I find some of their AFDs over aggressive, particuarly RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Xenogender, the 3rd AFD that year. It's too troubling for me to think they can be a mod. Andrew5 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally find you a bit overaggressive and wikipolicing as well, you'd be a worse candidate. Making AFDs and being ATIMed is not a sign of anything, I could find examples of you being sent to ATIM and making overzealous AFDs as well. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said I would be a better candidate, hence the accusation is worthless in this discussion.Andrew5 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2friedeggs incident was dumb, but it was a one-off. There is no reason to assume they haven't learned from it. Vomitorium (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is per the other links above. Andrew5 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about Andrew5. Most users dislike this user. He's been accused of being officious, having downright horrific takes in general ("The people advocating against it are the progressives, some of which believe crazy lies like white people ruined this country", he meant the likes of AOC or Bernie Sanders and cited Fox News to support that point; the rest of the talk-page should be eye-opening; these takes seriously hamper my perception of his ability to make cogent points in all matters) and a general pain in the neck many times, inserting himself in administrative matters despite being sysop-revoked for a very long time and being told off many times for this. He is unable to hold any productive conversation, refusing to concede any points and just weaseling out when backed into a corner. Productive responses to him are widely considered a waste of time and most people advocate ignoring him or telling him to buzz off in most cases. 14:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I might’ve actually endorsed you before that nasty aspersion. Now, that goes away. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * switching my oppose of Pluto to weak because they did a good job with the Luigifan situation.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak anti-endorsement. Jumped the gun a bit too much when it came to resolving conflicts in ATIM and there's some slightly stale arguments from back when GC was here. Short time as a tech does indicate maturity, but I don't think Pluto is quite ready yet for being a mod. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) meh FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) I wouldn't necessarily mind Plutocow being moderator, doesn't bother me, but I remember that Plutocow was pretty aggressive with the blocks and edit filter and had to be told off a few times by Techpriest. Now I don't know how much improvement has been made since then but the impression is enough to have me pause before fully endorsing Plutocow. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any wrongful blocking of thought police edit filter victims on their part, and have never seen them make any block I disagree with. Probably helping is that now they can see private edit filter log entries, so it's pretty easy to know if someone got caught by accident or is genuinely a wandal/spambot. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On my campaign I mentioned one user, Ozzyboo, who was barred from editing due to the edit filter that I believe I was pointed was part of Plutocow's edits. I rather we don't ensnare users without realizing it from this. 14:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Plutocow couldn't create and edit filters at that time, they're hardly responsible for that, unless I'm missing something. As for the reason, Ozzyboo was caught by filter 1, which at the time was running on basically all namespaces, until Techpriest changed it, I assume due to those blocks, given it was modified one day after Ozzyboo's blocks. (Special:AbuseFilter/history/1/diff/prev/1445). Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't even care about the incident and it was so minor that bringing it up is kind of weird. I can't blame Pluto for the edit filter being overzealous, and it was fixed within the day. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I try my best. And no, that was Cory. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh oops, sorry for any misunderstanding. 00:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I remember that, it was clunky but we were getting a huge number of trolls/spam/vandalism at the time. Techpriest fixed that by splitting out the filters, I believe. 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Good dude. 04:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good incumbent. Andrew5 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Striking per Techpriest comment bellow. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) While I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, and he is admittedly a bit of a provocateur, he has done a good job in his moderator duties. Plutocow (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) --RWRW (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) For the sake of diversity. Did alright as a mod.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Never seen them act up FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) It would be nice if CU toned it down a bit with his more excessive derp in the saloon, having said that, see no reason why he cannot stay a good moderator.  Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) I don't feel comfortable with the idea of having someone like CU in a moderator position on this wiki. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Gonna expand on this some more so I can give my reasoning as to why. CU has said a lot of really, really bad shit these past two months alone, between making disparaging comments against transgender people, people with disabilities, people who get plastic surgery, and so on. He cannot hold a good faith discussion, discussions with him eventually boil down to him dodging the questions he's posed with and short, quippy remarks in order to avoid making a genuine, longform justification for the things he says. He argues in bad faith, something that automatically makes him unfit to be a moderator in my eyes. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ehh...he's a good incumbent and never abused moderator titles. Andrew5 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really engage with Ozzyboo's concerns... Vomitorium (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive120, Ace was allowed to remain mod despite being in a flamewar with Oxy (Oxy since being permabanned at request, and Ace resigning). More recently, despite GC being a toxic asshole, he was allowed to maintain sysop rights until he kept removing sysop from 2friedeggs, and even that vote was only 62.5%. If mod isn't abused, it stays. Andrew5 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not re-electing someone isn't the same thing as a sanction. Vomitorium (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In spirit it is. If a mod can be a mod while attempting to troll others, then CU can also be a mod, even though they attempted to troll others. In moderator capacity, they did nothing wrong. Andrew5 (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a weird way of engaging with this and you're framing this in bad faith, so I'm not going to consider this a genuine rebuttal to my points. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I rebutted your points plenty. As long as he didn’t abuse the mod, which he didn’t, there is no reason not to trust him. You just seem to not like the candidate which isn’t exactly grounds for not demoting. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's more to moderator than just setting up votes and raining down the banhammer on people. These concerns are perfectly valid in mod elections. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They are. Just ignore Andrew5. 14:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if my only concerns were that I personally dislike him (which I do, but that's not what I was arguing off of), personally disliking someone would still be a legitimate and valid reason to be against endorsing them. You don't get to draw the line in the sand here. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) CorruptUser I cannot say I am comfortable working with moderators making several insensitive comments with concerningly little acknowledgement for making other people uncomfortable.. This one in particular struck out to me as demeaning people who go by neopronouns: "I'm not going to memorize a new set of pronouns nor stop a conversation to tell someone what a particular person's pronouns are if I'm talking about them." (see here for another comment like that). I recognize that this sort of comment won't fly in other communities who DO use neopronouns and would find this comment very hurtful. While I appreciate that "admittedly a bit of a provocateur" is an honest appraisal, I do think that should give people pause on voting this user to moderate discourse. I cannot in good conscience have a moderator who makes these statements. I've seen other comments that provoke an eyebrow-raise from me, but nothing enough to have me to tell them to stop posting. 02:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ive never seen Cory be less than professional as a mod. And his willingness to be mildly controversial and stand his ground is a major selling point for me. 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not an enlightened thinker such as you, but I actually find that a willingness to always stand your ground in the face of dissent is, in fact, a bad quality for a moderator. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes vocal users will demand banning someone who shouldn't be banned or keeping someone who shouldn't be kept. A mod shouldn't be afraid to argue for what they believe. (I also never said "always". 23:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you did not say always. RW is a mobocracy, though, mods are the will of the mob. Having a mod that won't be is not a good idea, in my humble opinion. I never said he should be afraid of arguing what he believes, because he has a right to. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I am in accordance with Lefty and Ozzy.--A p r i l Chat? 03:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I often feel that I may be negatively stereotyped by CU given their past comments about queer people. I wonder if giving them moderation powers would reflect poorly on us a community to the casual LGBT+ editors. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC).
 * 3) Per Lefty and Ozzyboo. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) Cory is also completely right about so-called "neopronouns". 23:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to reiterate my stance that I have no problems with using she/her for transwomen or he/him for transmen, as well as they/them for anyone, mostly because I believe the word "privates" contains the word "private" for valid reasons. 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Doing the bare minimum in terms of respecting binary transgender people or only a single category of nonbinary people is not something anyone is going to give you extra credit for, Cory. Nobody doubts that you'd use she/her for a trans woman or he/him for a trans man, which is why absolutely no one said otherwise. In any remotely progressive community that didn't run like RW does, you would not be a moderator because of the things you have said about people beyond that group, plain and simple. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Language is a fluid thing. I see the emergence of neopronouns as simply a case of linguistic evolution in real time. (Also, neopronouns aren't exactly a new concept.) Vee (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Language is unlikely to be determined in any significant way when only a small percentage of speakers make use of a particular term. In the professions it is called jargon. Those professional gender experts among us will certainly use such terms as needed. Non-professionals will probably not use special pronouns in common speech. For example, consider "latinx" as a pronoun meaning a gender neutral term for what the Hispanic culture refers to as "Latino." This term is largely promoted by woke corporate interests in media. Meanwhile it is mostly rejected by Spanish speaking people who may actually be offended by such a class cognomen. I do not think our moderators need be experts in any particular area of social studies. UncleKrampus (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I kinda want someone in the moderator position who is less prone to needing some fairly basic concepts that mainspace covers explained. Not strong enough to anti-endorse though. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be a sound criticism if our main space articles were unambiguous. Do you really think they are? UncleKrampus (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For this specific subject, yes. CU has displayed a pretty massive lack of understanding on matters given transgender individuals, something which our coverage on the wiki is largely straightforward on. It's rather important too - outside of Saloon Bar moderation, from my experience in the past 2 years as a mod, the main thing that causes conflict on this site is stuff related to do with our coverage of transgender people. Going just a bit beyond this site, transgender people at the moment are the favorite target of cranks and fundamentalists, the two subjects our wiki is central to debunking. I'm saying neutral on this because I don't think Cory is malicious in his lack of knowledge (he's been very open to discuss his positions in ways that are showing he's amicable to changing his mind, which I do respect), I just fear it's probably not going to be up to the task for the upcoming year, given the direction the Overton Window is shifting. Being a mod is above all else both being in a mediating position (be civil, this is the war room!) and not falling into the fault of the Balance fallacy while doing so. CU's understanding of trans people from my experience is too susceptible to the latter. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah pretty much my reason for anti-endorsement. 22:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that actually convinced me. Moving to neutral'. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. I just don't know what you are talking about. There are a lot of important issues besides gender-related rights. We are all polite toward neuro-divergent people, or try to be. I presume that CU can refrain from giving opinions on the subject when others are uncomfortable with them. Trans people should not be infantilized. They have the right stuff. There is a lot of mothering going on about them.UncleKrampus (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'll admit, I'm a wee bit concerned that the candidate may prove to be divisive in nature with a significant % of active userbase. I can't say I've seen anything which would warrant worry, but it's not like I've actually gone out to look for it either. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Smart fella, knows what he's doing. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Good dude. Watched him on Twitch one time. 21:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Wish he was elected last year. Andrew5 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Yeah, go ahead with Taylor Swift renames. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I've had no problems with Rock 20:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Great fella. Excellent to work with, can crack a laugh with. 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Bongolian (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Sure. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Absolutely not FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * May I ask "why?" Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 23:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't get your hopes up on a reply. I sent a question to them on November 4 with their baseless oppose rationales, so did 2 other users, and no response was given. It could be per this. Andrew5 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * Yay, some propoganda. Automatic yay for being first. Andrew5 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Sure, don't have issues. Remember them mostly for making thoughtful comments on saloon bar and mainspace talk. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) As the nominator, I believe they have what it takes to wield RW's modhat. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Deserves a chance. I have also noticed a deree of thoughtfulness in their comments often found wanting in the saloon.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Smart guy who doesn't place being civil over being correct. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Spent too long in college FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, what? What does spending a long amount of time in college have anything to do with moderating this site? American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) --RWRW (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Good dude. Nominated by me. 01:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Conscientious, certainly a positive influence here. I was gonna nominate him but pizza-breath beat me to it.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I can also see this one being a good mod. 02:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) A good editor with some well-written propaganda (above). Bongolian (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Calm and levelheaded. Worthy of mod. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Always got along with me, or at least not clashed. 20:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Very competent as RMF member, this kid gonna go places as a mod, let me tell ya. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Not long enough as staff. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) I believe he could organize a booze up in a brewery. His future's so bright, he's gotta wear shades. Spud (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Too long as mod too long as staff FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * GeeJayK has never been a moderator.Why comment on someone you appear to know nothing about?UncleKrampus (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed it to too long as staffFallisBestSeason (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) I will say that GJK is a good mediator of conflict, he's levelheaded and intelligent and knows what he's doing. However, I also personally think he's not very good at arguing from good faith during long and protracted conversations. I'm stuck between endorsing him for his calm demeanor and easygoing personality and not endorsing him because he resorts to bad faith after a discussion goes on for too long. No hard feelings here, by the way, you'd probably make a great moderator, I just can't bring myself to endorse or be against endorsing. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) I have a lot of respect for this user--A p r i l Chat? 03:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Probably one of the most patient, responsible, and empathetic users we have on this site; definitely one of my favorite moderators - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC).
 * 3) An excellent moderator. It has been a pleasure to work with her. Bongolian (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Proud to be part of a community with you as a mod. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) You'd lose out more by not having her as a mod than by having her. Calm & rational even in difficult situations and is good at providing empathy even in situations where that might be difficult to bring up. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) She's done a lot to turn this place into a real source of information and a community I'm happy to be a part of. Not to mention being a figurative shoulder for me to cry on. Has my wholehearted support. Spud (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) she is good at blocking trolls from this website which makes this place better. - - - Edward the eight (Talk) 9:54,4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) tends to follow group-think too much but has head on straight FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Moderates with finesse. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Absurd that anyone would anti-endorse. Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) I know I’m gonna get backlash for this, however, LGM seems more interested in countering everyone everything I say than actually moderating. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Shut up nerd lol ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that Lefty said that most users don't like Andrew, as if that were a justification for anything sensible. I don't know if that is true. I do support her but I don't think that statement does her any credit. But I can tell you I don't like it when people act out because they think they are supported by an angry mob. Cut it out.
 * "In spirit it is. If a mod can be a mod while attempting to troll others, then CU can also be a mod, even though they attempted to troll others. In moderator capacity, they did nothing wrong." Are you gonna walk back that statement andrew5. 02:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * CU doesn’t do it in a moderator capacity; you do. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You couldn't name a time LGM unjustifiably abused her mod powers to troll if I held a gun to your head. Your arguments are meaningless drivel drunkenly babbled out between tears of anguish as they've always been. If you were honest and actually admitted that you only don't endorse her because she was personally mean to you, I would have a modicum of respect for you, but because you're a dishonest hack that can't say anything without somehow tying it into wikicopping, I can't afford even the slightest amount of good faith. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I never said to troll. I also never said using her moderator powers, but rather under moderator influence. In addition to all comments above on this page, we have this aggressive edit summary, as well as the following diffs of him chasing me down - (which btw was LGM's only edit between April 2 and June 28 and didn't even vote on the proposal).American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how this isn't just petty bullshit exclusively between you and her that doesn't have a deeper meaning, lol. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you oppose CU because you don't like him, I can oppose LGM because I don't like her. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I explicitly said I didn't anti-endorse him because I personally dislike him, and I have no issue with you not endorsing her because you don't like her personally, I have an issue with your dishonesty. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as CU goes, I flipped to neutral because Techpriest made convincing points. Your comments on CU don't hold any more weight then me being chased around by LGM. Your comments seem to be "I don't like his comments in the bar." That kind of is you not liking the candidate, as you never argued against him being good as a moderator. LGM, I feel, hasn't done that much moderating. Between April 2 and June 28, the user only made one edit - on April 30, which happened to literally be to go against one of my comments about Unclescrooge and coops. They seem to not be able to hold a good faith conversation about me without bringing up loads of personal beef. Heck, they even bring it up in irrelevant situations, just to frame me to look bad. That before is more unprofessional than any of CorruptUser's behavior. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, we now have this delightful edit. American daylight saving time ending November 6, Andrew5 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think she's talking about Ken, not you. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was. Ken is not welcome. Ken knows he's not welcome. This is why Ken is posting in Saloon Bar. I was only directly referring to Andrew5 on the Discord comment, saying "you're the first one who brought it up. Don't think [it's needed] either. 02:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, that makes sense, and I apologize for misunderstanding, but my other concerns are still valid. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This isn't personal (we have a history so I am not going to delve into that) but LGM reasons for wanting to be a mod never sat well with me. Too needlessly bureaucratic and seems to enjoy that part of it. Those are my thoughts anyway. Love always, Acei9 22:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. However, I don't think "bureaucratic" describes me well. I've generally abided by the processes that I'm given with. I've even pushed forward with ATIM cases where a simple talk page consensus was sufficient to take action on a problematic user (blocking Let Them Eat Cake), even advocating skipping the voting process that would be described as "bureaucratic". Perhaps you don't like how I sometimes tell people to stop acting a certain way, such as telling Machina to stop reverting collapsed threads but again that's not really invoking of being "bureaucratic". If you mean that I sometimes want to have a talk page discussion first, it's only because I want a consensus first, to see if my judgement calls for it. I don't believe that's unreasonable? I know you believe I overthink stuff, have a low tolerance for bullshit every now and then, display emotions quite easily, am too self-conscious, etc., and I can totally see that slant, but being "bureaucratic" isn't a unique problem to me? Heck I've disagreed with Techpriest a few times on procedure and she may be aware that I'm more practical, "gut-feeling", "observe the room" type while she prefers a more formal process. Bongolian and I both cooperated to have a civility guideline and this was agreed by a few moderators at the time. 00:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know what I said, no point in relitigating it. You're just going to have to wear it. I retract my love. Acei9 18:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctantly anti-endorsing on the basis of un-mod-like behavior towards Andrew5. Andrew5 managed to severely piss me off during the Cold War discussion and I still think he's a pain in the ass, but I haven't chased him around the site to disparage his every remark the way LGM has. I don't like it when mods feud with users, and I said so during the Ace-Oxy debacle. I am also struck by LGM's approach towards the recent case concerning Cory in ATIM in which she seems to support shutting down and berating good-faith users for saying things she disagrees with. She also feuded with Ace in that discussion. Such an attitude has troubling implications for how she would approach general discussions. Her recent stances and behaviors, combined with her abrupt resignation as mod in 2020, make me hesitant to vote for her again as I have done in the past. 17:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Going to engage with you on this because I find your statements odd. OSD did much of the same in that ATIM case, and I don't think it's an issue either, because their interpretation of the situation was that it wasn't a "disagreement". The case didn't go anywhere, she did not advocate for punishing Cory for what he said, she mediated the conflict while still not being afraid to advocate for her positions (something you have personally said is a good quality for a moderator, but I guess it's bad when she does it in a way that is not "civil" and "good faith"). ---Ozzyboo (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't like that she humored dragging someone to the mod page just for saying something dumb in one discussion, and I disagreed with the "more than a disagreement" interpretation. I believe she should have followed the example of the other mods in ruling that it was a non-issue. I also took the "then don't be in our wiki" bit as her advocating booting people off the wiki if they make "borderline offensive" comments, and my mental response to it was in line with Ace's. There's a line, but Cory wasn't even close to being over it. But it's only my endorsement and my vote; I can only say what I thought of the matter. 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially when it began on their (my) own talk page by the "injured" party. Ozzy asked me what my honest opinion was re: Trans issues, so I gave my honest answer.  When she (I think Ozzy's 'she', correct me if I'm wrong) didn't like that answer, she went to ATIM.  Overreaction, but whatever.  Given more recent reactions, I'm becoming less of a fan of Ozzy, but as I've done in the past with people I've liked far less than her, I'll defend her from harassment and trolls.  Because I believe rights are for the people we don't like.  20:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * lol, CU, I literally acknowledged that I should not have gone to ATIM in the ATIM, LGM also acknowledged this. Duce, she said "don't be in our wiki" because explicitly refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns on purpose is transphobic bigotry, and a violation of community standards. The ATIM wasn't a big deal because CU doing that was only HYPOTHETICAL. CU, congratulations on saying you'll do the bare minimum for your job on this wiki even though you personally mildly dislike me. Do you want a cookie? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Joke's on you if you think I won't eat oatmeal-raisin cookies though, although my ideal cookie is white chip macadamia.  20:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "she said 'don't be in our wiki' because explicitly refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns on purpose is transphobic bigotry" yeah, I saw it as just colorfully reiterating Community Standards. Just substitute other no-fly things. "if you are unwilling to respect someone's [sexual orientation; religious affiliation], don't edit RationalWiki". Now, let's just eat cookies once this blows over and no one gives a shit about elections for another year.  22:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Best option out of everyone here, to be honest. 20:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) He was a good moderator in the past. Bongolian (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I haven't personally interacted with this user, however, it does seem he is a good moderator for RW, and as such I endorse them. Andrew5 (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Good dude. 20:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Historically a competent moderator. Knows when to put his own biases aside when it comes to mediating conflicts. Solid endorsement. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Gonna endorse for conflict mediation skills. Experienced moderator and only took a break because of the shitstorms in ATIM and coop a while back, see no reason to deny him mod because he left temporarily for his own sanity. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Not in love with the job. I like that. Too many candidates disappear entirely when they just lose an election. Former mod who did OK.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Did a good job during a previous stint as moderator. —cosmikdebris talk&nbspstalk 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Although not very active, he's beaten me to the punch on WIGO World plenty of times in the past year. Let him be our own poacher turned gamekeeper once again. Spud (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Shabi  DOO  20:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Not active enough for me to comfortably endorse. 00:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) --A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 02:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Meh FallisBestSeason (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorsements
 * 1) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Nominated by me. 07:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Without question. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * Goat
 * 1) I haven't seen KarmaPolice do anything that would unqualify them for the position, but their lack of admin activity makes me wary to endorse them at this time, unfortunately. ~Andrew5 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)