RationalWiki:2018 board of trustees election/Campaigning

Campaigning is closed

3 trustees will be elected to serve 2018-2020.

"Campaigning" is for candidate promises & arguments in favor of their trustee-ship.

"Question time" is to ask candidates about their scandalous, hypocritical, and generally shitty behavior -- or anything at all you'd like to know their thoughts on.

"Endorsement sheet" is to endorse candidates.

LeftyGreenMario
This is my first time campaigning doing anything ever like this so I probably require some explanation and training, which I hope isn't asking too much. That being said, I'm a highly trusted editor on the wiki who also got moderator and plenty of endorsements from last election, which I do hope I lived up to my promises, despite a few hiccups here and there sometimes. If I can be trusted to settle disputes, then I think I can be trusted to deal with finance despite my lack of experience. Well... for finance experience, I'm not the type who'd blow out money on Mario merchandise in one day and my parents trust me with their money, as I've never ever abused their credits cards and I show them all receipts from transactions with the credit cards. I'm a good person. :> I'm only starting to set my feet in the murky waters that is United States healthcare, taxes, and budgeting, even though I don't work yet. BUT anyway, money isn't everything. As long as we're sustainable, we shouldn't worry too much about how much money we're making. Anyhow, my biggest weakness is my lack of experience, but I've got to start somewhere, and I'm hoping I can gain experience and knowledge about this. Learning is fun! 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

RobSmith
In coming years Rationalwiki faces important challenges. The budget and fundraising for a growing resource is one such challenge. I've seen RW grow from off the charts to a top 75,000 site on Alexa, to a top 7,500 in a short span of time. And now in the top 5,000 in just the past year or so. All because of the tireless dedication of a handful of editors.

My background is in business consulting and financial services. I'm familiar with U.S. tax law - both personal and business. I bring a spirit of objectivity and nuetrality to the job in these trying and uncertain times.

Enchanted13
I don’t expect to win, and as such I have no platform or ideas. In the absolutely insane scenario where I manage to achieve an upset victory, I am glad to announce that I will produce a plan for the Board of the rectally derived variety. This same strategy got me through college, and I achieved honors status, so I guess it can also work anywhere else.

RoninMacbeth
Due to personal concerns related to my identity, I am withdrawing my candidacy for the board. I admit that the main reason I chose to run was because there were only three people running at the time, one of whom was RobSmith. I will pester push Board members to adopt some of the ideas I either put forward or agreed with, particularly the posting of board minutes on the site. If anyone's disappointed, well, I don't blame you. As a final statement, I urge anyone who was going to vote for me in the top spot to vote for LeftyGreenMario or BobM instead, though I doubt anyone would vote for me as their top choice. Best of luck to all, RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

PBfreespace
I've been on here for many years, and I'd love to see us expand and remain solvent, because I think our mission is critically important in times like these. As for my financial credentials, I'm a very conservative spender (which is ironic, because I'm a left-winger). I've never maxed out a credit card and I've always paid my bills on time. Despite my left-wing political beliefs, I think I'd be a voice for frugal spending on the board.

Bob M
I'm really here to try to make make sure that some - shall we say "inappropriate" - candidate doesn't get on the board by default. But it looks like we have sufficient good candidates now anyway.

Most people won't remember me but I've been around since the start of the project and served on the board in its first incarnation, so I at least know how things work. Or how they used to work anyway.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ikanreed
It is my belief that the board has 1 job: make sure an open, usable wiki dedicated towards promoting science and skepticism is still here in the future. That entails fundraising, server maintenance, and intervening in site content only when the law shows it to be absolutely necessary. So far, none of this has been a catastrophically hard thing to do. I think most of my fellow campaigners would do a perfectly acceptable job at it, and I'm not promising more than that, myself.

David Gerard
Um, I've done the job for a while. We haven't collapsed in a heap yet, so good!

I have (oh God) thirty-odd years' experience on the boards of small incompetent charities, so what's another couple.

As super-tiny volunteer charities go, we do OK. I figure we can keep this going.

I have no radical plans to push forward because I'm pretty sure we don't need radical plans at this point. But I'm open to persuasion on this point.

Fundraising
RationalWiki only raised 1/8 as much as infidels.org but has 10x as many visitors. Is this a problem; if so, how will you resolve it? 08:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, having more 10x more visitors is a great thing. It really depends on how sustainable the money is to maintain the important .org status. Ads are annoying, and we should switch to ads only if maintaining the servers are unsustainable and other fundraising efforts are failures. If money is that important, then we should look into why infidels has raised much more money despite having much less visitors (and I don't know if our fundraising goal has played any part, but anyhow, reaching the $5000 mark should be an accomplishment for ourselves). Maybe infidels has a more dedicated fanbase while RationalWiki promotes short, quick visits, by virtue of being a wiki. But all in all, I don't see a big problem with a site raising more money than us. I like to focus on just our site and try improving the quality and maintaining a good community, that's my priority over money, even if keeping it nonprofit becomes unsustainable. 00:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not running, at least not yet. But I see two things about their page that could be a reason why they earn more money. 1) Their donate link seems better designed. 2) They have prominent links to Amazon for relevant books from which they earn money from the Amazon Affiliate program. This is something that RW does not take advantage of. A third point is we don't know if they have an angel donor who makes up the bulk of donations: this could be a reason. It might be worth trying to contacting their board of directors directly about advice. Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of ads, but a link to Amazon for relevant books might fit in well with our mission. We support scholarship, reading, and the dissemination of (accurate) information. Peyre (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're in any good relationship with any other regular users from that site, perhaps we can work together, as what Bongolian said, and perhaps we can get help get more visitors to that site too. 03:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I recall that some boardmember raised Amazon Smile as an option but we never moved forward with it. I'm not sure why. That's a good goal IMO. 06:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We have a thing where we stop actively pushing the fundraising when we've met our goal. I mean, if we needed lots more money we could stop doing that - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

How exactly has fundraising been staged in the past? Does it occur (1) when money is needed, or (2) has a study ever been done to target which specific times of year rake in the most, or demographic and regional targeting? RobSmithThe future is now 04:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Trent goes "hmm, running low, better run a fundraiser" - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is common in many for-profit and non-profit organizations. The problem usually is, the revenue source also is low at the same time. So it's a matter of studying revenue flows and timing, and capturing your primary source benefactors when they are flush with funds to help. RobSmithThe future is now 20:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

IT staff?
Given the poor technical upkeep that led to the user data breach in 2017, should the RMF pursue some kind of paid technical support? If so, what should the RMF's goals here be and how will you achieve those goals? 08:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends if it's affordable to hire technical support. I'm not familiar with the finances yet but if there is support willing to, well, support, then perhaps. We can look at other successful technical upkeeps. Can you think of any? 00:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If financially possible, that should be one of the first expenditures the new Board should consider. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. RobSmithThe future is now 03:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a use case for more funding. I keep stuff from actively catching fire, but I never wanted the job in the first place, haven't wanted it at any time in the several years I've been doing it, and now have what's effectively a second job (as a cryptocurrency journalist, God help me) so time is sparse - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Goat
If very hungry in wilderness, what would you eat first, goat brains or human brains? 11:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why just the brains? 00:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure LeftGreenMario would eat the Mega Mushroom instead and flatten all of her opponents. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Be especially wary of my newfound ability to harness the power of hats and political dissidents and make them say really stupid things like "Bowser is using hairdryers from Hafta Havit Hairdryer Hotline Corp to melt the world". That'll probably backfire anyway.  02:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Goat brains. Trust me, the alternative is too bland of a taste, at least without some cayenne. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am also not a corporate symbol. I'm only one member among the diverse. Anti-Mario bigotry ends here. 03:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that human brains are usually a little bland. The trick is marinate them well in brandy for a week or so. Goat brains on the other hand are best eaten warm and fresh. So when pressed for time in the wilderness then I usually prefer the goat brain.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Research Database Subscription
If possible technically, would the candidates pursue RationalWiki subscriptions to scholarly databases such as CORE and SSRN? RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my ignorance, but can you elaborate on this? What's "CORE" and "SSRN"? 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SSRN is the Social Science Research Network, which stores articles related to, well, guess. CORE is less specialized, but similar in purpose. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I'm correct, these are databases we can use to back up our claims relevant to those fields they cover? If RationalWiki were to subscribe to those databases, would you use them? Do you know anyone else who would use them? And has RationalWiki ever subscribed to other scholarly databases? 01:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, Hell Yes, maybe, and not to my knowledge. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, first, we need to find out exactly how the subscribing thing works first. If it's technically possible, then, yeah, it would be great if we had good resources to use. Do you know any other wikis that do this though? 01:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't. So far as I know, we'd be the first. Financial stuff might also be an issue, I really just wanted to see what you would think about the matter. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be a nice to have. We don't tend to the sort of reference checking culture Wikipedia has - though arguably it'd be nice if we did. Also, I get the idea lotta people here are academics with university access to the good stuff. I suppose the question is: is there anyone who would like to do this? - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you get up early on a Saturday?
Being a member of the Board of Trustees will require you to have meetings via Skype with the other board members, including me. My time zone is UTC+8. I'mp happy to have a meeting that starts at midnight Saturday night/Sunday morning my time. That will probably be quite early on a Saturday morning for you. Are you OK with that? Spud (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My two cents, I find times around 1200 UTC work well for around the world. Which is early morning in the USA, so... another helpful comment from me. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 09:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't get up early on a Saturday, but I can stay up late on a Friday. So basically the same thing. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm part of the PST so that would mean, uh...., well, it's 2:30 PM where I am right now. It's UTC−7. 21:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As to the question under consideration, No problemo. RobSmithThe future is now 03:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

John Lennon or Paul McCartney
Who do you prefer? John Lennon or Paul McCartney? More importantly, why? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No preference. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a Jimi Hendrix fan. RobSmithThe future is now 03:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jimi Hendrix would vomit in his grave and die all over again if he heard that. Bongolian (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Imagine is overrated. 04:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Promoting the RationalWiki image
What would you do to get us respected/acknowledged by more groups? How important do you think it is to achieve that? So for instance, how would you certify that others know the talk pages are free for debating an article's POV?

I don't how concerning this is for some people, but we do not want to be liked only by people who agree with what we're saying anyway. IMHO anyone who reverts POV changes rather than directing the user in question to the talk page is not setting a good example. —Kazitor 06:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article issue is something that moderators and regular users will have to take steps to improve on. I do not see how the Board can help that, and indeed the Board doing so would inspire a potentially dangerous precedent where it can direct content on a whim. The Board getting involved in on-site issues at all is generally a sign of deep shit (see User:Aneris).
 * With regards to improving our image, though, it is of at least moderate importance that we make a name for ourselves in the skeptic community again, which means maybe sending representatives to events when necessary and networking with other skeptics. The Foundation, therefore, can indirectly influence content by raising awareness of the site and thusly attracting new users. Other ideas such as podcasts, videos, and essays will all be useful in attracting attention to the Foundation. It is the RationalMedia Foundation, not the RationalWiki Foundation, after all.
 * Board members will have to make massive improvements to the RMF's site, in addition to producing off-wiki content, in order to draw more people to the Foundation and, hopefully, the Wiki as well. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The question sort of misunderstands the the purpose of the board:
 * "The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote and defend science, critical thinking and public interest dialog in a free and open forum. The Foundation seeks to develop and publicize free educational and collaborative content, create community focused software, and to connect and advance the global community of rational thinkers."
 * The wiki itself is not mentioned in this purpose statement and the board has no editorial control.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will admit I went into a bit of a soapbox at the end because this has been annoying me a lot recently. You know that thing where you have a great idea, then you get home and try to reproduce it, but you can't for the life of you figure out how you intended to phrase it?
 * Regardless, it does overlap: "promote and defend science, critical thinking and public interest dialog in a free and open forum" This means that, even though it is not limited exclusively to the wiki, the board should still be focussing on "promot[ing] ... critical thinking and public interest". This does extend past the wiki, for instance when I looked at the RW twitter account some time ago I was quite surprised at how much of the retweeting was just senseless bashing of conservatives as dumb and stupid, and praising liberals as sane and logical. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 12:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are getting a little off the point but I have felt for some time the the wiki itself is getting far to focused on political issues rather than it's expressed goals of rationality and the promotion of science.
 * But, in the end, the wiki is the result of the combined opinions of its members - and if that is what the membership is interested in at the moment well - so be it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-authoritarianism has always been part of the RW mission. As authoritarianism pops its ugly head up across the world, we need to directly and strongly counter it. One needs to look no further than the US to see that authoritarianism is directly linked to anti-science. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rationalwiki is cited as an authority by Snopes. This is something that could be built on. RobSmithThe future is now 01:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Taxes
You say in your statement that you are familiar with familiar with U.S. tax law,. Are you familiar with tax law in the same way that Trump is? Would you want to pattern the RationalMedia tax structure after the Trump Foundation? Bongolian (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2017 Tax Reform Act brought big changes affecting non-profits. These certainly have to be reviewed. RobSmithThe future is now 03:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not answering the question,, but anyway let's try it this way. Since white collar crime is rarely prosecuted in the United States, do you think we should take advantage of that? Bongolian (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I love how each of Rob's answers to the current set of questions has been vague one liners. It reminds me of real politics, where I watch the candidates attempt to dodge direct questions. 03:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * White collar criminals? Nail their ass to the wall, I say, Especially those who would abuse their non-upprofit status. RobSmithThe future is now 03:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, now we're getting somewhere, . What do you think of self-dealing with non-profits? Let's say the board of directors decides to hire someone to paint your portrait; it's much deserved, isn't it? Bongolian (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's despicable. Chelsea Clinton, for example, tried to reform the Clinton Foundation. But the auditors and reformers she brought in were driven out by corrupt insiders. Some went into hiding. RobSmithThe future is now 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, so you think it's MAGA when Trump does it and gets caught with both hands, both feet & his ding-a-ling in the cookie jar, but despicable that no one's indicted CC because she didn't do anything she's a witch. It's good to know where you stand,. Bongolian (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said and/or implied any such thing. Your statement is like saying Trump critics endorse Clinton Foundation corruption.
 * Let me add, as a client service rep for a CPA in the 1990s I personally uncovered corruption in a few very small non-profit entities. The stories were always very similiar; the non-profits consisted of a single person who held all the offices and constituted the board of directors. They had substantial endowments which they managed themselves to accomplish the non-profit mission. In all cases, the non-profit managers were too greedy milking the entity for their own gain to hire an outsider to prepare the non-profit tax return, which then got them red-flagged by the IRS, and brought me into the picture. But old habits are hard to kill, and in virtually all cases they refused to become compliant. In such cases, a lawyer usually takes over where the CPA leaves off. RobSmithThe future is now 05:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then, you didn't answer my questions at all then. You support Trump, you're allegedly against corruption, but Trump is crooked as fuck, literally. You have to be ignorant, a hypocrite, a willful enabler or corrupt yourself to continue on that path. Bongolian (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You misread a bunch of facts: Chelsea Clinton is the hero of the Clinton Foundation reform movement (leaving aside the question of nepotism; a more qualified manager for a $3 billion entity might have been found). Chelsea was thwarted in reforming thd institution by her parents old corrupt insiders. It's almost like Bill & Hillary intended for her to fail. RobSmithThe future is now 05:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Trump's corruption doesn't matter because Clinton." Yawn. Everyone, please note how Rob dodges the issue and attempts to sidetrack the conversation with Whataboutism. 14:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-germane. The point is compliance with the U.S. Tax Code, and avoidance of negative publicity by skating too close to the edge with loopholes. RobSmithThe future is now 15:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of support
Do you support all of RationalWiki's purposes, specifically: If not, which do you not support? If you support all of RationalWiki's purposes give evidence in the form a link that shows a substantial edit or series of edits that you made to a mainspace page for each of these 4 purposes. This question is directed at nominees who have not previously held a position as moderator or boardmember but all nominees are free to respond. Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
 * 2) Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
 * 3) Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
 * 4) Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
 * You know Bob M has occupied a position, right? And what is your obsession with mainspace edits, they really aren't that important nor telling. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize to Bob M for that. I didn't know that he had a position because he was more active before my time and has been rather low key since then. Regarding mainspace, Anyone can make talk page contributions, and not have them reverted. It takes a certain level of knowledge and commitment to the RW purposes to edit mainspace pages that is not required for other talkspace or funspace. Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, having substantial mainspace edits should be considered. Majority of my edits, for instance, are on mainspace. 04:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RoninMacbeth
Well, I contributed substantially to the 2017 UK election article, specifically about how it undermines the Tories and Theresa May ([https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=2017_United_Kingdom_general_election&action=history link) which I hope qualifies. Mostly I do edits to history and politics and provide minor context, so yeah. I admit I should edit mainspace more frequently. But I did confront someone over at Talk:Abiotic oil, so I guess that demonstrates I'm not entirely scientifically inept. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)o
 * OK, could you at at least answer the question of whether you support all of the purposes then, ? Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

RobSmith
Yes I do. There's much to be ssid here. "Crank ideas" is a somewhat subjective term. Fortunately the Rationalwiki Foundation clarifies it as "support for critical thinking," which I wholeheartedly endorse. As to as exploration of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, my mainspace contributions to Saudi Arabia, Shariah and other pages are fair, clear, and illuminating without being offensive to anyone. As to examining pseudoscience, I've been frustrated over questions surrounding Genetic engineering in foods on both sides of the Atlantic; both claim a scientific basis to allow or ban such foods. Likewise the link between pseudoscience and lobbying corruption in some Big Pharma cases are issues people don't seem ready to discuss yet. As a board member, the budget and promoition are the primary concerns; content and editorial oversight are best left to the mob. RobSmithThe future is now 22:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind providing links to the exact edits that you're referring to? Notably, you do not claim to have made any contributions of note on the pseudoscience pages. Could it be,, that your ideas of what pseudoscience is and what scientists' view of what pseudoscience are diametrically opposed? Bongolian (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a substantial portion of my edits to Saudi Arabia, which is a 90 year plus examination of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. As to genetic engineering of foods, the EU uses science to ban imports; the US uses science to grant licenses. No one wants to discuss it, although it appears science is at odds with itself. RobSmithThe future is now 00:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) You made some edits to a single page 2 years ago. You also included a reference to The Daily Mirror, a tabloid and not a quality source, in a more extensive series of edits that you made on the same page. These latter edits were reverted. Your editing on the mainspace is far from impressive based on this. 2) You did not answer my question about pseudoscience, 3) If you cannot indicate any concrete commitment to the RationalWiki purposes, why should you be trusted as a board member? You could easily attempt to use your alleged expertise in tax law to subvert the RationalMedia Foundation and ruin it. This is why it is important that proposed board members should have previously concretely demonstrated their commitment to RationalWiki, and you have not. Bongolian (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of perspective. You may be mistaken in your in analysis. I'm not running for ideological kingpin.or Budda, I'm running as a qualified person with the knowledge, competence, and judgement in legal and financial affairs who can be trusted with a solid record as a fidiciuiary and agent, acting on behalf of others. RobSmithThe future is now 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough. Can you tell us a little more about your experience in the business world, potentially including non-profit experience? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've spent many years owning and managing my own businesses in retail sales. I did a stint in 1990s and beyond working in financial services, accounting, taxes, workers comp insurance, payroll services, benefits, and as a mortgage broker. About 2001, I could see the crash of 2008 coming, and returned to self-employmemt in business consulting, advertising, and retail sales. I am now semi-retired. RobSmithThe future is now 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For a period in the 1990s I worked as a client service rep for a group of CPAs, mostly bringing them new clients and servicing the contracts afterward. One CPA focused on non-profits, so technically what I know I learned from there {I solicited and screened about 200 prospective clients for audits). Reading a financial statement isn't that different from a for-profit entity, but the tax law is quite different. Although I've prepared thousands of tax returns for businesses and individuals, I've never done a 990, but do understand the basic theory of the law as it applies to for-profit and non-profit entities. RobSmithThe future is now 16:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You mentioned seeing the 2008 crash coming in 2001. What exactly tipped you off? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * During the mortgage re-finance boom which began about 1996, it took only about two years to re-finance all the 'A' credit borrowers (credit score above 620) nationwide. After that, the mortgage lending business returned to the dog-eat-dog business it has always been. First time buyers are a small limited market that's hard to break into. So that leaves only subprime lending, which has always been tough. But lenders, coupled with FNMA, wanted to keep the boom going. They lowered their lending standards. Basically, when I saw a 19 year old single mom high school drop out working minimum wage qualify for 'A' credit with 95% financing on a first time new home, I could see the whole house of cards FNMA built was ready to collapse. It was just a matter of time. RobSmithThe future is now 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's worth bearing in mind that we don't really know which Rob Smith this is or if he is indeed Rob Smith in real life; it's an exceptionally common name. It's true that someone has vouched that he's the same as the Conservapedia one, but so what if he is, it's not exactly a glowing recommendation. We also don't know whether his claimed qualifications are real, nor do we know whether he has been involved in accounting fraud or some other crime. What we do have to go on with certainty are RobSmith's RationalWiki edits, which do not indicate any dedication to the purposes of RationalWiki. If RobSmith's alleged accounting qualifications are real, why hasn't even he bothered to edit our relatively apolitical & benign article on accounting? RobSmith, you really do have the yuge gold-plated cojones to be running for a position of responsibility based on this record. Why are you doing it? It sure looks like you're in it for subversion. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Also, if we actually need an accountant, why not hire one that we know is certified, insured and recommended? Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If he did actually wish to subvert RationalWiki, why didn't he run for mod in 2016 and 2017, or run for the board last year? Indeed, he would have been able to nominate himself for all those positions. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Realistically, he didn't stand a chance then. Now he presumably has the support of RWRW, WWW & others. Bongolian (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming WWW is telling the truth, he's had multiple socks here for years, and RWRW theoretically could have voted in the last mod election. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can help. I said I worked in financial services, basically a sales position. I can read a financial statement - as anyone can. I understand the basic theory behind tax law - which is necessary because no two individuals or business entity's tax situation are alike. Each are unique and must be analized as such. The field of Accounting is a separate field. I said I brought Accountants new clients. I am not accountant. There is a saying among Acountants, "Accounting is science, Tax Work is an art." Tax planning allows for creativity. RobSmithThe future is now 04:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Enchanted13
I would definitely say I am in agreement with those purposes, and my edits may be limited, but I have contributed to the Herman Cain article along with a few others over the years. -Sophie (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , have you contributed to any articles on pseudoscience in any substantial way? Please give link(s) to the edits if so. Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not. It’s not an area of expertise for me, unfortunately.—Sophie (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Bob_M
If I remember correctly, I helped create the objectives, so, yes, I think I can state that I stand by them. I have also recreated an old version of my user page which identifies some of the articles I created.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

David Gerard
um ... yes? - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This whole "namespace 0" thing is completely non-indicative of anything anyway. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 12:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Leftygreenmario
Considering Trump has clearly proven that the New York Times is the undisputed enemy of the people...what does that make rationalwiki? Are we a site of treacherous treasonous sexy subversives? Can we be saved? Is goat an enemy of the people?
 * RationalWiki I hope isn't another treasonous sexy entity among the ocean of treasonous sexy entities in popular media. We need originality! Goat is certainly not the enemy of the people, as goat milk is the most widespread consumed milk across the globe, though! Goats haven't written for New York Times, right? 17:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Enchanted13
Sometimes when I click on random page, I'm not blown away by the content. Most of the time its just plain goat. If you are elected to the board, would you promise that everytime a user clicks on randompage, that the article will knock their socks off with facts, entertainment, insight and a colourful talkpage to boot?
 * I will do my best to make sure that every article you see is the perfectly concocted balance of RWnesss with a sour outside garnished with hot flakes, but with that sweet, creamy center people usually favor. --Sophie (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RoninMacbeth
Some users think that wikis are as old as a Mesopotamian goat and we ought to bring in the news. What do you think about changing every article into something like: "5 unbelievable mindblowing secrets about Ken Ham you need to know yesterday" ?
 * God no. Cracked became a bad clickbaity site, and I don't want to follow. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

PBfreespace
Do you think it would be a little excessive if you made it on the board revealing your identity, that a user sends you flowers and chocolates on behalf of all rationalwiki comrades to thank you for your hard work? What if you were sent a goat?
 * (comment to clarify issue) Becoming a member of the board does not require public disclosure of your address. 11:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Bob M
You're like the coolest rationalwikipedian ever. Do you have any advice for users who aspire to be as rocking hot as you? Also, how many goats does it take to eat up a whole rationalwiki stub article and fart the words and letters out until a better article appears?
 * You may be speaking about "old superactive Bob" but I'll give you my advice for what it's worth.
 * 1. The Wikipedia advice of "assume good faith" always works well. Even if a person sounds sarcastic treat the question as if it were legitimate. 2. Be nice to newbies - we were all newbies once. 3. Try to criticize opinions and not people. Saying "That idea is stupid" is not the same as saying "You are stupid" - unfortunately not everyone understands you are making that distinction. 4. Being wrong is not the same as being stupid. Most of us are wrong about many things. 5. If you discover you are wrong then admit it. 6. Try to remember that there are real people at the other side of the screen. 7. Remember where your towel is. I don't always live up to all of this of course, but these are the standards I try to set.
 * The article goat/farting metric has been the subject of numerous double-blind scientific studies - unfortunately no consensus has yet emerged. I recommend the peer-reviewed journal "Goat Farting Monthly" to any readers who wish to keep up with the research.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rob Smith
The last time I had a McFlurry there was a very low ratio of oreos to icecream and i was not pleased. And the icecream tasted like goatcheese. If you are elected to the board...would you block McDonalds and all of its sockpuppets from rationalwiki until they get the oreo icecream ratio right?
 * There are two types of stupidity, congenital and aquired. Some people are born with it, some people pick it up along the way. I like to be believe we are open and inclusive, but like any parent, there's limits to my patience. Even a dog is known by its deeds, whether they are good or evil. What's needed is education and training. This is provided by solid, sound leadership. RobSmithThe future is now 15:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you comment on your assertion that Vladimir Putin is the only Westerner with balls to stand up for traditional family values against the homosexual agenda, as written here. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Do you doubt that that's true? It's a big reason he's popular at home, and a bogeyman in the West.
 * If the phrasing doesn't appeal to you, what would you suggest that readers in both East and West would agree on? RobSmithThe future is now 04:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're wondering whether is a homophobe, you can look at his edits on the Conservapedia page on cp:homophobia. Does RobSmith agree with the Conservapedia statement that homophobia "is a bogus term invented to suppress and eradicate all resistance to the normalization of homosexual behavior under any circumstances, or criticism of LGBT ideology, activism and the LGBT agenda. It is being applied to an ever-wider range of things, such as resistance to increased political and social power of homosexuals in advancing their agenda."? Bongolian (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree with that statement. In fact, if you did your homework right, you'd see that statement overwrote my definition as an irrational fear. RobSmithThe future is now 04:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First note, I did not call you a homophobe. It's exceptionally tedious figuring out when that statement was added, and when you claim your statement was overwritten. Since you seem to know the details, can't you just give the link(s)? Did you take issue with whomever overwrote it? I don't see it in the talk page, but perhaps you can enlighten? Bongolian (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Citations 8 & 9, and the "Claims of Internalized homophobia" were pretty much my contributions - and it's pretty much mainstream science as well. To suggests a mental condition (a phobia) should be criminalized or ostracized is abhorrent and unscientific. The section you read says pretty much the opposite of the points I made.RobSmithThe future is now 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Such an interesting debate but Shabidoo still doesn't know what RobSmith would do about badly made oreo McFlurries. Shabi  DOO  09:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rob. Do you still stand by your statement that the US doesn't win wars because there re too many atheists in the military? (And could you answer the question asked rather than try to switch the topic? Thanks.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. In the future there will only be bloodless electronic wars, such as we're seeing played out now. Keynesian warfare is a thing of the past so your question is easily answerable without offending anyone.
 * The atheist does not recognize any higher power than the human species. Even James Comey, battling to resist the forces of theocracy and authoritarianism, lays claim to a higher loyalty. Assuming that loyalty is limited to the human sphere, which consists of both theists and atheists, Is he willing to die for a cause he reasonably only has a 50% chance of being correct? Further, let's assume he can convince himself he reasonably has a chance of being 80% correct, he also must convince himself that theists intend to kill him, and he must defend himself and his beliefs at the cost is hs own life against the possibility that he is wrong.
 * This of course, is the definition of insanity, and the same type of irrational thinking rationalists accuse theists of. Now conversely, atheists should be given proper credit in their role in assisting the post-Keynsian bloodless electronic warfare age. RobSmithThe future is now 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * wth is Keynesian warfare? I would assume you're using an alternate term for Military Keynesianism, except that doesn't match what you seem to be describing.  Are you talking about something specific, or is it just a snarl word to equate killing and bloodshed to an economic strategy you disagree with? Peyre (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sooo Rob. The answer to the question "Do you still stand by your statement that the US doesn't win wars because there are too many atheists in the military?" is still "Yes"?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the past, perhaps. I've never seen any scholarly work on atheists' contribution in the United States to victory over Hitler. I have heard President Franklin Roosevelt lead the nation in prayer during the Normandy Invasion. The ACLU never filed suit.
 * During the Vietnam war however, godless atheist communists like Jane Fonda or Bill Ayers did much to harm the U.S. war effort (ironic, isn't it, hearing the Left fawn over that racist draft dodger, George W. Bush, call that racist warmonger John McCain a war hero).
 * In the future, atheists contributions to ushering in the end and the age of electronic warfare can't be denied.RobSmithThe future is now 17:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The English version of the above statement translates to "Yes, I still believe Atheists make poor soldiers." 18:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the spirit of Christ would cause a person to throw himself on a hand grenade to save his buddies, regardless of what a person calls themself. RobSmithThe future is now 18:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that he's fictitious entity cobbled together from multiple mythologies, that's quite an achievement. Or we could go with the alternative theory that most people who are willing to risk their lives actually give a shit about the lives of others that they have formed emotional and social ties with. You know, empathy. 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As a side note; "I'm saying the spirit of Christ would cause a person to throw himself on a hand grenade to save his buddies, regardless of what a person calls themself." Can we take a moment to enjoy this quote? Because it implies that Jesus possesses someone's body and forces them to kill themselves, and that they (the soldier) have no say in the matter. Can we just enjoy the implications of that? 19:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're making my point quite well.RobSmithThe future is now 19:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which point would that be? The one where you fail to understand how self-sacrifice works, because in your mind people need to be pushed (apparently quite literally) to help others rather than actually having the desire to do so of their own volition? 19:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , your ignorant response is personally insulting to my family history. You'd be happier living in a theocracy. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Even Jesus said "If you love them who love you, how are you different from the Gentiles?" Jesus was fighting the racism of his day.RobSmithThe future is now 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about racism. It's about your religious bigotry. Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I love everybody. Would you jump on a hand grenade to save Jerry Falwell? RobSmithThe future is now 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you jump on a grenade to save Stalin? 19:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pointless hypotheticals. Here's another one: would Smith jump on a hand grenade to save Judas after he betrayed Jesus so that he would have the chance to sin and hang himself? Something not so hypothetical: Smith's atheophobia is revolting. Bongolian (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You make the same point -- you're unwilling to die for Southeast Asians of a belief system other than your own, or Muslims in Iraq. Sure, you'll die for a family member or personal friend, but the rest of humanity can go fuck itself. RobSmithThe future is now 19:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not atheophobic, he just thinks in terms of Christians = good, everyone else = bad. 19:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No one said that. No one even implied that. 19:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You said it: '"most people who are willing to risk their lives actually give a shit about the lives of others that they have formed emotional and social ties with." That doesn't apply to workers in the rice paddies of Vietnam, Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, or anyone outside your little social circle you formed emotional ties. You are proving Jesus's point: "if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the collaborators do the same?" RobSmithThe future is now 20:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rob, let me put this in simple terms so you'll understand it. they have people in their social sphere, over in their country, who want to protect them. If that's still too hard for you to understand I can break it down to metaphorical family units. Also, Bible quotes don't mean jack fucking shit. They are parts of a poorly translated, poorly proofread book that was originally only meant to be read by priests, who could then pick and choose what parts to give out when it suited them, or alternatively they could just make shit up because no one else at the time could read Latin, aside from said priests. 20:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this conversation kind of went off the rails. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we've pretty solidly established that RobSmith thinks very little of non-Christians (or at least atheists) and avoids seriously examining his beliefs in that area.  It might be time to move on from the topic. Peyre (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The museum that just burnt down in Brazil with irreplaceable documents and artifacts don't mean jackshit either, I suppose.  What are are you advocating, justification for the destruction of of documents and antiquities by ISIS in Aleppo? You obviously are unqualified to distinguish the letter of the law from the spirit of the law in the U.S. Tax Code. RobSmithThe future is now 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * }: in your own bigotted minds.RobSmithThe future is now 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You know goddamn well that's not what I'm saying. First of all, I withdrew my candidacy, so that ad hominem is unnecessary in this campaign. Second, I was defending you, jackass! I think the accusations against you were getting too acrimonious when we've already established your beliefs, and no further discussion was necessary. Are you really so obtuse as to think my objection to a long-winded and increasingly pointless argument means that I want ISIS to destroy artifacts? Jesus Christ, you're a dick. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , they actually let you out in public. In a way, I respect you for that. (apologies to the author's estate for my paraphrase from memory) Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's move on to another question. If Donald Trump decided to sue the RMF because he dislikes how RationalWiki portrays him, could you, as a Board member, remain impartial and argue for the facts as they stand, even if they go against your political beliefs, and even though you would be arguing against a politician you support? 17:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Candidate endorsement sheet
1.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I endorse this candidate.  01:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Officially the best editor on RationalWiki. Spud (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. What a Wonderful World (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) LeftyGreenMario makes lots of quality edits and stays out of trouble. A great choice. Bongolian (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Mushroom farmers support mushroom eaters. Boomers endorse boomers. This person is a fine and frequent editor. Nerd (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) - 05:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Professional, active, experienced, and knows when to adapt to the environment instead of shying away from criticism. The best option of the three nominees, but I reserve the right to rescind my endorsement if a better candidate comes through.Serocco 3:11AM, 15 August (US EST)
 * Even if another, better candidate comes through (unlikely), then you know you're still allowed to endorse more than one person, right? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Definitely one of our best. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Great candidate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) One of the greatest editors RationalWiki has to offer. I wish her the best. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Most definitely. —Sophie (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) You have my support. Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes, definitely. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) 20:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Whoops, I didn't realize I hadn't done this yet. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  19:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) A competent Mod, and will likely be a competent Board member. 03:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Probably one of easiest and safest bets for a good board member. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) She's my favourite commuinist nintendo character Shabi  DOO  00:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) I was about to goat this, but instead changed it into a hesitant endorsement of LGM (I never even considered an anti-endorsement, btw). I agree with her assessment of herselft as a good and trusted contributor and mod, but that is of peripheral importance for being a board member. However, unlike some of the other candidates, LGM has been forthright about her limited experience, highlighting her willingness to get to grips with this new an unfamiliar role, the latter approach being a definite plus in her favour in my book. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Clearly has shown she is quite capable for the job.S.H. DeLong (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 15) ;Goat
 * 16) Not an anti-endorsement but more of a reservation, even though it doesn't really affect qualification for the RMF anyway. In my experience, LGM has been a little too abusive of mod tools, sysoprevoking users who didn't deserve it and acting as if anything she says goes because she's a mod. Also acts a bit like a populist, holding any opinions extremely loosely so as to appear to be in agreement with other users. Just some thoughts that have been on my mind for a while now and didn't want to cause drama; also maybe tone the Mario stuff down a little? —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 05:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On my part, the RWRW temp sysoprevoke was in response to you denoting the user despite the mob saying no to the tools. This was to prevent a possible user rights warring and to initiate a discussion first, which we did, where it went smoothly and RWRW got sysoprevoke removed. The second time on Kingdamian1 was more inappropriate but it didn't come from nowhere as I explictly warned about sysoprevoke as I was running out of warnings about his posting habit (that other users complained about) and to prevent him from unblocking himself. These are the possible contentious sysoprevoke tools I employed, and I only believe the latter to be a possible abuse, though that resolved quickly as well as other people have disagreed with my actions.
 * As for acting as if anything I said goes, I can dispute that with the two incidents above where I reversed my actions when people found a problem with them, but it's self-contradictory to say that I both think anything I say goes while also not holding strong opinions like a populist. I like examples where I did this, but to be fair, I often have some self confidence issues and it's perhaps not often I hold strong opinions. I value validation for my opinions and actions and I can be maybe too reliant on it, which may be the reason for that behavior.
 * Finally I was under impression that whatever a moderator suggests, with the mod hat template, especially during disputes should be adhered to as they carry some authority and they are entrusted with some authority, some, above other users. I find that criticism a bit strange.
 * Anyhow I acknowledge my earlier mistake and I hope not to do that again. I might try to tone down the Mario too, I am sorry if I was annoying about that. I just thought it's a quirk that'll help me stand out. I'm sorry if my mess up affected your trust in me a bit. I will try not to do that again. I still, however, stand by my earler temp withholding of tools for RWRW. 06:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had these thoughts before RWRW, in case you think that's what started it all. With regards to "it's self-contradictory to say that I both think anything I say goes while also not holding strong opinions like a populist." Yet note that in these cases your authoritative judgement was often reversed after some slight complaining.
 * You do seem a bit trigger-happy with modhat, note RationalWiki:Moderators: "The mantra of the moderator is to do as little as possible to meet the responsibility of their position." "moderators should view their actions as boot-strapping, not issuing orders from on high." Please remember that the vote on requests for rights was not official in any way, so there was no reason to enforce its outcome.
 * You don't need to make yourself stand out, so less constant Mario would be much appreciated on my part. Anyway, feel free to talk to me on my talk page so we don't spam up this section; I just wanted to voice some minor concerns in case others wished to consider them too. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 07:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps LGM is trigger-happy with the modhat because she is one of the mods who gets involved in breaking drama up most often, ergo making it seem like she disproportionately uses her tools? I often share some of your doubts, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt more often than not. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see everyone's problem with the Mario. It's never gotten in the way of business. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  16:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And you can overlook my flaws. I'm only human... 18:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are people seriously complaining about LGMs fondness of Mario stuff? I like Mario stuff too! What has this site turned into... the old guard would NOT approve. And people wonder why I'm nominating the people I'm nominating... Put some people with a sense of humor on the board for crying out loud. What a Wonderful World (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, it's just excessive. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

2.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Endorsed as nominator. What a Wonderful World (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "What a Wonderful World" has confessed to past election interference and appears to be continuing down this path. RobSmith is an awful candidate who is being used as a tool by nefarious actors who want to destry RW. Bongolian (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. I hope RobSmith wins. --RWRW (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Mwahahaha – moral endorsement to the token Trumptastic wingnut.  09:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) For the lulz... Endorse Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 5) RobSmith is a refugee from extremely active on Conservapedia. He is mostly a lurker/talk page commenter on RationalWiki. The fact that he stated in his acceptance, "Like Peter Strzok and Donald J. Trump, I can keep my personal opinions separate from official duties." is truly a bad sign. Bongolian (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now is that any way to treat a refugee? What are you, some kind of intolerant bigot?RobSmithThe future is now 17:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You obviously struggle understanding basic legal issues. Trump's tweets were cited by a federal judge as evidence of bias in overturning the Muslim travel ban; Strzok's private text messages on government devices at work, Strzok argued are not evidence of bias. Okay Mister Smartyparents, render your impartial verdict: which one, or both, acted with or without bias, if you yourself are capable of making decisions without bias? RobSmithThe future is now 02:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to quote you verbatim. I made the mistake of assuming that sane people would know that it is Trump who infuses everything with his personal bigotry. My apologies. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You're just triggered by the word "Trump," regardless of context. RobSmithThe future is now 02:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Go take your "triggered" and ram it, . I'm not a fucking You have no dedication to this site whatsoever, and this is plainly evident from your edits, and lack thereof on mainspace. You haven't denied that you believe in pseudoscience, see above. You didn't bother to edit the single RW page in which you allege to have expertise, accounting. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * is literally up to his ears in bullshit, as can be seen from his active and current edit history on Conservapedia, making it likely that he's running the the board to sabotage it. Bongolian (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old RW brand of paranoia. Can't say I've missed it since it's so omnipresent. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 08:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it goes beyond paranoia, . We have a totally incompetent candidate,, who claimed to support the RationalWiki purposes, yet has hypocritically done jack shit here while making massive edits at the autocratic site that is known for "extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake". We did indeed have an election hacked before due to our exceptionally slack rules on voting and candidacy. Bongolian (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Uses Trump as an example of someone who can keep "personal opinions separate from officisl duties."? Yeah... I think this person should be kept away from the reigns of power, and that's without mentioning any of his other skeletons. 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Never said any such thing. Why don't you take a shot at answering the question: Can statements made on a personal Twitter account be considered evidence of bias in person's execution of their public duties (be it Trump or Sarah Jeong)? Can a civil servant's exercise of the First Amendment at work on government communication devices be considered bias affecting his work duties? RobSmithThe future is now 02:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I wanted someone to lie to my face I'd hang around with spies and politicians. You did indeed make the above quote and you are proving my point for me. As for your attempt to beat that dead horse of yours... Yeah, your really only screwing yourself over by doubling down on that. 04:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, you're half correct. I cited both Trump AND Strzok as examples of people who claimed they were entitled to First Amendment opinions and they both claim they can keep those biases apart from their job duties. You decide which to believe. Most people would agree quoting me out of context may be evidence of your own bias. RobSmithThe future is now 04:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "I humbly accept. Like Peter Strzok and Donald J. Trump, I can keep my personal opinions separate from officisl duties." That is the full quote, and in its full context. Let me be blunt, If you did not wish to be perceived as untrustworthy, you should not have said that. Now if all you wish to do is conspiracy monger, well go right ahead. I do enjoy it when people dig their own graves, saves me the hassle.
 * P.S. Thanks for doubling down and proving my point. 14:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. Trump is a racist and Strzok engaged in a deep state coup conspiracy to overthrow the United States government. Both the court and the civil service commission acted properly when the Travel ban was over turned and Strzok was shitcanned. RobSmithThe future is now 15:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't know much about his personal history and he's not really that active, outside of making almost-exclusively saloon bar edits, and that he holds bizarre views such as attacking Californians as "stupid" and saying they would have elected Manson as mayor, which may turn out to be less conductive when you need to serve as part of a board and you may have to work with differences. Weird views aside (which in of themselves aren't disqualifying views, but they don't help my impression of him), I'm not sure why you'd choose him out of all people, .  01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly because, as he states on his user page, like RobSmith he votes Republican and supports Trump. Either way, I don't think we should give much weight to an endorsement by someone who openly states they don't like RationalWiki and literally think it's satanic. Peyre (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should give it a little more weight considering I, together with a friend from high school, got Pbfreespace3 elected as an alternate for moderator... What a Wonderful World (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's something. Maybe I jumped to conclusions re. political affiliation. Peyre (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As to Manson, that's not evidence of bias. As Peter Strzok said, "No. No, we'll stop it. RobSmithThe future is now 02:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a bias to speculate on Californian voting patterns when the speculation, combined with "Californians are stupid", is unsavory as expecting them to want freaking Manson being governor. 22:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * California is soon not to be part of the United States anymore, so who cares?
 * Wait a minute...the geniuses who elected the geniuses who put succession on the ballot are ban on voters being too stupid to know, based on the Civil War precedent and an 1869 federal court ruling, it is illegal to succeed from the Union. RobSmithThe future is now 23:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you not exposed to actual news very much, ? Do you not read RationalWiki pages much either? The first modern attempt at California secession (CalExit) was a Russian troll attempt that was subsequently abandoned (see Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia). The 1869 court case that you refer to bans unilateral secession, not secession per se. Ironically it is Texas v. White, (see Secessionand a lot of Texans still have the fevered dream that they are entitled to declare unilateral secession. The second modern attempt at California secession was also abandoned by its libertarian backer after the California Supreme Court questioned it's validity. It might be a good idea for you to not call or insinuate that other people are stupid when you are speaking out of ignorance. Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * California's not going anywhere. Secession has never been on the ballot, and it would fail badly if it appeared there.  Not many of us want to leave the US, and doing so (if it were possible) would be really iffy anyway. Peyre (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Certainly some nice irony and even meta-irony in his statement of acceptance. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Hell no. Never. As those above me noted, he paints Republicans as impartial public servants and he's from Conservapedia. I refuse to let wingnuts launch a silent coup and co-opt this site. Serocco 3:04AM, 15 August (US EST)
 * No. I paint Republicans as taxpayers who pay the salaries of public servants. RobSmithThe future is now 02:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like him. I don't trust him. I don't want to work with him. Spud (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) He's basically a troll. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 12:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Obviouly a joke candidate who most certainly doesn't have the objectives of the site as a priority. The problem is that some obviously inappropriate candidates can sometimes win elections - as the USA is learning to its cost. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Nyet, Comrade. —Sophie (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't see the point. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Hell no. 20:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) No. Obviously a troll. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) I’ll readily admit to finding my discussions with RobS interesting, not least as a sort of intellectual variant of However, while I find Rob to be an interesting conversationalist, I most fervently do not think that he should have a hand in steering the RW ship. For that, I consider him to be far too ensconced in his own righteousness and I fear that such a level of cocksureness might lead to some very bad decisions. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) While I do personally believe that RobS means well in what he does and that he can be very funny at times. I am going to have go against him on this one. His claims of "objectivity and neutrality" are laughable in themselves. He clearly cannot be trusted whatsoever with a position of power.S.H. DeLong (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) No. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Нет, дружище 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

3.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Endorsed as nominator. What a Wonderful World (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC) withdrawn What a Wonderful World (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I have not been presented with enough evidence to determine that she has used sockpuppets, and my previous experiences with her were positive. Also, the idea that RobS has more endorsements than Enchanted13 is distasteful. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 5) I'm not sure about this person's identity, as whatever is going on in that person's talk page is... well, very confusing like here and here, if, the nominator, is telling the truth. I'm not sure I'd like to see that kind of self-vandalizing behavior in someone that's a trustee.  01:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did he even attempt to refute it? No. Look at the more recent discussions on the talk page. On the other hand... c'mon girl, where's your sense of adventure? I mean, you guys had FuzzyCatPotato on the board, and he isn't that much more mature (based on off-wiki activities that I will not be discussing)... What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss or drop the subject, your "hint hint, nudge nudge" shtick got old ages ago. 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, no. But given GC's response and the drama behind this user and that, it's like a smokescreen and I don't know who to trust. My sense of adventure would be bravely accepting the nomination. :P 02:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Based on someone who is Sysop-revoked (What a Wonderful World) having nominated this person, it's likely that Enchanted13 is someone's sock puppet. It also seems likely that this person is one the entities in RWRW's proposed cabal for RationalWiki takeover by turning it into a totalitarian Trump wiki: no joke: Bongolian (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I assure you he is someone's sockpuppet, but he is not my sockpuppet if that's what you are inferring. I'm going to be very transparent here, the reason I nominated him was for entertainment purposes. Ace was a genuine pick. I'd love to see Rob win, but unless few people show interest, he probably won't. So there you have it, the rest were for entertainment purposes. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't say he was yours. 2) More evidence that Enchanted13 is in cahoots with RWRW:User talk:Enchanted13 Bongolian (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think there is some sort of conspiracy going on between myself and Enchanted13 (as devious that would be) you are mistaken. I'm not in cahoots with any RW users but feel free to email me if you want to help my cause anyone! -RWRW (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How the hell is that proof of Enchanted13 being in cahoots with RWRW, when it could just as well be Enchanted13 looking at Recent changes, seeing a bad edit, and reverting it accordingly? RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was proof; I said it was evidence: a big difference. Bongolian (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Self-vandalization isn't a very good look.Serocco 3:04AM, 15 August (US EST)
 * 2) I also have doubts about the identity of this user (who was formerly known as Colonel Sanders). Two former Ameriwiki users, both obsessed with Taylor Swift, come here at roughly the same time. They seem to indulge in good-natured banter on each other's talk pages at first, talking about Colonel Sanders killing Elvis with too much fried chicken. Then it turned really nasty. But even if Enchanted13 is completely innocent and has just been a victim of trolling, I'm really not aware of any positive contributions that she's made to the wiki. Spud (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence for that, it would constitute ban evasion I believe. Bongolian (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no evidence. I just always assumed those two users were the same person. They both had user names that conjured up images of classic Americana and neither of them seemed to do much except bang on about Taylor Swift on their user pages. I was actually really shocked when the one user started abusing the other. Given what I'd always thought, that didn't make any sense at all. But like I said, even if I didn't have any doubts about this user's identity, I'd still have to give an anti-endorsement to somebody who doesn't seem to have ever made any positive contributions to this site. Spud (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC).
 * 1) Don't know this user. Can't possibly endorse.  09:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry man (woman, whatever), if you're just going to pout like that because you're not winning the popularity contest, I'm not going to endorse you. I expected a little more spunk than that at least. What a Wonderful World (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn’t sufficiently entertain you. More like self-deprecation, as opposed to pouting. I never expected to win. Really. —Sophie (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Not suitable for this position. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

4.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) I'm on the same page as this guy. We can work well together. Spud (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I endorse this candidate. 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  16:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) It's great that this user stepped up. He has my support. I am especially impressed by his desire to post the minutes of board conversations. The fact that the board has failed to do this for years has resulted in a dissociation between the board the witki. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) An excellent choice. —Sophie (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) An excellent choice: quality edits, level-headed, has not gotten into trouble. Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) RoninMacbeth would make a good trustee. --RWRW (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes, endorse you! I think people will be fine working with you. 18:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Someone interested in spreading our realm of influence. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Good candidate. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Good enough user. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 08:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Seems to be a fair and diligent person.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) We both share an absolute infatuation with Madagascar vanilla pods. You're not sopposed to just eat them directly, they are pretty strong and hard on the stomache...but how could we resist? Shabi DOO  00:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Second best choice since Luigi above. User:Serocco 06:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 16) Ronin has shown time and again that he has integrity. The Bryan See incident shows that he can make compromises (even though, that one fell through and failed).S.H. DeLong (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 17) Sure thing. 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 18) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 19) ;Goat
 * 20) I'm not going to anti-endorse him, but he does have a history of feeding trolls... What a Wonderful World (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trolls aren't going to be a problem if you're just going to deal with board issues. 18:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the IRS? 12:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the IRS? 12:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

5.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) He's a mod alternate, so why not? What a Wonderful World (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because he was endorsed by a troll: What a Wonderful World.
 * 1) I endorse PB3. As explained, the "drama" regarding his edits about a certain issue is not a disqualifier considering the circumstances, especially since other nominees - like ikanreed - have behaved the same way about similar topics and have a great deal of support. The vast majority of the anti-endorsements mention the I-P issue and are irrelevant and void. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 3) Anti-endorsed by me for same reasons as when he wanted to run for Mod. Was one of the main instigators of the Israel/Palestine divide, possible history with Doxxing, dosen't play well with others, blah blah blah you get the idea. 03:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Doesn't seem to have brought much to this wiki apart from creating ill feeling. Spud (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) No thanks. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Nah. —Sophie (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Above reasons. 20:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) The Great Palestine Debacle. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 08:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) All of the above. Bongolian (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Another co-conspirator in the wingnut coup attempt, we must stop them all. User:Serocco Serocco 06:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) A combative editor with a knack for ticking people off and creating drama is in my eyes not what the board of th RW Foundation needs. Remember, this is not an election regarding mods or editorial line, but about ensuring that the site has the financial resources necessary to continue to operate. I, at least, would prefer an accountant over a pundit for such a role. Addendum: I will, however, tip my hat to the candidate for emphasising frugality as a campaign promise. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) ;Goat
 * 13) Appears somewhat rarely on the site, was involved in the Mona-Avenger War. Not decided though, so my mind can change over the course of the campaign. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the opprobrium that pb receives is entirely unwarranted - for the mona-avenger, thing especially when considered with the toxicity of some of the others involved, certainly guilty of nothing that was not easily reverted nor anything more egregrious than what others here have gotten up to. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't have any strong feelings for this user, aside from having to clean up an old, bad edit we overlooked. 17:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

6.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Old guard, yes! What a Wonderful World (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I endorse this candidate. 17:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) I know nothing bad about this user, and I've heard good things. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) I actually had no idea who this person was, but he received Sysop from User:Tmtoulouse in 2007, which should be a good-enough endorsement for anyone voting for sane candidates. He's made non-controversial edits and stayed out of trouble, which is also good. Bongolian (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Decent guy, don't know him well but he hasn't made a bad impression with me. 03:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Normally someone's strong point being a lack of complaints is concerning, but regardless I have no issues with Bob M. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that it is rather disturbing that my apparent blandness seems to be my most attractive quality. I guess that all the people I used to have drag out fights with in the early years are long gone. Sorta sad when you just outlive your enemies really.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Solid choice.—Sophie (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Good choice! 20:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Always seems to offer sober advice.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Will be extremely useful to have a former member back on the board. Spud (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Doritos is Bob's favorite snack. Shabi  DOO  00:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Good choice, a former member who knows what's up, will be a good steady pick.User:Serocco Serocco 06:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Getting some old school experience (back) on the board doesn’t sound like a terrible idea - even if the motivation of the candidature seems to be somewhat “preventative” (as in preventing the inmates from taking over the asylum). Also from what air recall of seeing Bob’s various RW fingerprints, he seems alright. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 10) clearly biding his time to implement some master plan. you are not fooling me, fella AMassiveGay (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At last a complaint! More seriously - yes! I have waited over ten years for this power grab!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

7.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) Absolutely. I trusted Ikanreed with the board the last time I voted, and would gladly do so again. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Summed everything up very nicely in the campaign message. Spud (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Eye canned reeds 2! 16:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) I endorse this candidate. 16:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes, an excellent choice with a proven track record. Thank you for throwing your hat in the ring! Bongolian (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Trustworthy and helpful with a solid record of good contributions to the wiki. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Ikanreed iz de ultimet liturary jeenyus on de hole interwebb Shabi  DOO  00:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Longtime user, proven track record, with good rapport, he should be in. User:Serocco 06:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) I have to endorse Ikanreed for setting out the most appropriate, clear and succinct campaign message so far, which also neatly sums up what the board is about (as I’ve noted elsewhere, this is not about mods, editorial line or contents). ScepticWombat (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) A fine user. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 22:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) ;Anti-endorsements
 * 13) His tendency towards verbal abuse at anyone who disagrees with him is not conducive to teamwork. Harassment is unacceptable; polite discussion is the way to go. Nerd (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As moderator, I have not been informed of Ikanreed's alleged harassment or verbal abuse (presumably, you mean ad hominem attacks rather than just vulgarity). We don't and shouldn't tolerate either if that is true. Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean both, . Feast your eyes here, and here. He admitted that he is tempted to abuse his powers. This is also relevant, as are this, and this. Regarding those two last links, he jettisoned basic decency just over a slight disagreement. It turned out that we all were on the same page more or less. ( did a fine job moderating.) If I had no problem interacting with so many other editors except him, maybe I'm not the problem. Nerd (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's relevant to your decision, reader, yeah, I'm rude as hell when I think things dip into purposeful intellectual dishonesty. Don't have any taste for politely addressing points that I can't believe are held with genuine sincerity.  Anyone considering voting for me should understand that Nerd's accusations here have some merit in that sense.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Considering Ikanreed had a conflict with Nerd and has declared they regret nothing, I don't think this user is a good pick for the board of trustees. I don't want this person representing this site when legal issues are present. 13:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) As others have explained, ikanreed is a very toxic, aggressive, and hyper-ideological member. Furthermore, their campaign slogan says "It is my belief that the board has 1 job: make sure an open, usable wiki dedicated towards promoting science and skepticism is still here in the future" but they have demonstrated only tangential desire to promote skepticism and far more desire to push modern Western political trends. ikanreed will no doubt argue that their political views are quite aligned with RationalWiki's goals, which is a different subject, but as it stands their campaign slogan is misleading and paints an incorrect view of their editing priorities. That being said, they have gotten better, but I have not seen them fully change. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree calling him "toxic" though I do agree he should massively tone down the aggressiveness especially against people he perceives as intellectually dishonest (I like to see some more reasonable doubt). I also disagree that he has demonstrated "only tangentical desire to promote skepticism" as he responded to my request to respond to a Gish Gallop and took care to examine the study trotted out in close detail as well as dismissing some other sources by calling into question their motives (by linking to their about pages and using their own words while also citing critical sources). He also investigated one study I brought up and wanted additional comment, which was nice because I didn't expect a comment back like that. I'm not sure how he perceives people as intellectually honest, but maybe he's all right with me so he doesn't treat me with derision the same way he did with Nerd and Ariel. I do agree with ikanreed that Nerd is defending bad edits but I strongly disagree with his approach. I'm still endorsing him but I hope he keeps this stuff to a minimum, as causing drama that can be subverted with more constructive comments (and refrain from aggressive language unless everyone else agrees there's a troll around here) isn't productive as the argument turns into either mud-slinging or responses about the nature of ikanreed's comments rather than the actual argument in there. The subsequent comment about the "desire to push modern Western political trends" is claptrap, don't know why that's brought up other than trying to poison motive into this, which is the same problem ikanreed is suspect to. 17:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

8.
 * 1) ;Endorsements
 * 2) If you want to ban me for this, you go right ahead, but my opinion is so strong on this that I'm not going to sit in the side lines. I'm endorsing David Gerard because he is an ass. There are two ways of interpreting this: you may choose to believe that I am endorsing him because, based on above comments, my endorsement is toxic, or you may choose to believe that I am endorsing him for real because I think he will be bad for the wiki, but in either case, that's where I stand. What a Wonderful World (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just fucking go away. Your babbling and gibberish is very annoying. You are clearly here to disrupt and you bring nothing of value to this place. Go whine in 's hugbox some more. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You forgot your "regards", Cosmikdebris. 01:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I endorse David for this role. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) A long-time editor, and stickler for getting it right. He's currently on the board, which seems to be doing OK. Bongolian (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Re-electing David Gerard for continued continuity would make things go a lot more smoothly. Spud (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Bongolian and Spud. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) If he's running David is a beyond-excellent board member, who does things like pay attention to major problems at hand and make the wiki go, in spite of hating that mundane, dreary, technical work. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Knows what he's doing. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Backup candidate in case any others lose. User:Serocco 06:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) https://www.mariowiki.com/images/b/be/Mario_OK%21_-_Animated_Sticker.gif 00:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree with Bongolian’s reasoning that someone who’s a stickler for rules is exactly the type needed for a seat on the board. As I’ve noted in my anti-endorsements of other candidates, this election is about the board of the RW Foundation, not mods or editorial line. Electing someone for shits and giggles or just to stir things up (as per WaWW above) is a particularly bad idea in board elections. Save that kind of thumbing your nose for the mod elections. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) ;Anti-endorsements