RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive9

Election of December 2016: Campaigning

Applesauce
As a moderator, I would be as hands-off as possible and only intervene if absolutely necessary. I'd try to let people resolve their own disputes, and I would try not to block anyone unless they do something terrible. Applesauce (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What were you attempting to do here and why did you do it? Hipocrite (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Aw. The sock parade was starting to get really entertaining. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Trying to stop Kiwifarms from influencing the outcome of the moderator election. Allow random IPs to edit, that's what you'll end up with. They're already discussing this right now. "They are doing moderator elections now."Applesauce (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's hard to believe that a bunch of shit-stirring from anonymous trolls could in any way influence the outcome of the moderator election. To assume otherwise is to do a great disservice to the community here. Who gives a shit about kiwifarms, anyway? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Right now" as in "several days ago". 17:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh it's only several days ago, do I guess it's alright. Come on, you know better than that. Applesauce (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm convinced this person will abuse the tools if elected. He protected this page, without discussion, simply because a sysoprevoked user who has about as much chance of winning as Avenger insisted on it, and totally screwed that up on his first attempt, then he blocked an IP address for "deleting a talk page comment" (a comment which was blatant trolling). Any moron who rewards the revision of a troll post with a block, gives into the demands of a chroll (you know how it is actually spelled) without discussion, and can't even do a simple page protection right doesn't need to be a moderator. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking back I shouldn't have blocked that IP, I was in the wrong on that. But I protected this page without discussion because Kiwifarms and 4chan were talking about trolling this very page. I don't see how you could be against that. Are you alright with those folks coming in here to edit? I hope not. Applesauce (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering this is the wiki that elected made notorious troll User:MarcusCicero a moderator... Short of an actual flood of trouble, I can't say I support page protection. Even Wikipedia doesn't usually protect pages to silence the single purpose IPs in elections (unless the IPs are blatantly vandalizing the election page), they just discourage the IPs' participation. As for the IP you blocked, it was easy enough hit the "reset" button on the back of my modem :). 76.5.20.117 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Avengerofthe BoN
My platform is simple. As a moderator I will end ideological bans and I will eliminate witch hunts and Mc-Carthyism. We will once and for all get rid of embarrassing fights over who hates Israel more and focus on our core tenets, which will be all the more important in an era of rampant anti-science idiocy in the highest halls of power. WIGO will stop being the playing ground of some ideologues and instead once again become one of the best news sources in your feed. I will aid and cooperate with the techs to upgrade to a new version of Mediawiki so that we stop lagging behind Conservapedia in technology. I will furthermore acquire a goat and make Assfly pay for it. If you, my fellow RWians have additions to make, please propose them on my talk page. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, propose them here -- this is a discussion space. 03:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Bongolian
This is not a job that I would relish but should I be elected I promise to act with impartiality to the best of my ability in the furtherance of RW's goals. I have not gotten into any edit wars after 7000+ mainspace edits in 2-1/2 years of editing. Bongolian (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

CheeseburgerFace
VOTE A BURGER FOR MOD



I'M DELICIOUS

I'm going to serve the community well, not be an asshat, and do my best job. I will listen to fellow user input and respect others. I will give out blocks only as required. I believe that a moderator is not a better user. A moderator is a regulator of conflicts, and a person who enforces community guidelines. That's it.

CorruptUser
All will tremble in indifference towards my Felt Slipper of Laziness. My job as moderator will not be to enforce my crackpot ideologies personal interpretations onto others, but to ensure healthy debate only by intervening when all other reasonable options have been exhausted. CorruptUser (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard
Done it a while, you know what I do. I may be an arse but I try to be a stable and predictable one - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

DiamondDisc1
I'm not going to get into needless fights. I'm not going to abuse my powers. But I will probably do the best job possible.

As moderator, I will aim to: For a job well done, vote DiamondDisc1! - 18:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Continue to discourage needless blocks. Just because someone disagrees with us doesn't mean they should be blocked. Only if they break wiki rules should they be blocked/banned.
 * 2) Not go overboard with my punishments. I will do the amount needed, and no extra.
 * 3) Take user input. The wiki is not a dictatorship.
 * 4) Be an active user. I will aim to be on here everyday, and to make at least a few edits each day.
 * 5) Make friends, not enemies.
 * 6) Update wiki software and fix bugs with tech help. Do we really need our gadgets randomly disappearing?
 * 7) Avoid being crazy.
 * 8) Work with the five other moderators on shared goals.
 * Note:Thanks to everyone who's endorsed me. :-) - 04:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato


My promises in 2015:


 * 1) End ideological blocking: I'll call this one a success. 2016 saw more long-term blocking than 2015 & 2014 combined. 2016 also saw an insane number of spambots (they're still here, Special:AbuseFilter/11 is pretty cool now). 2016 also saw ongoing nonsense from Mikemikev, KF, FatAardvark, and others. (If those names are unfamiliar, we've done a good job.) Given all that, I'm happy with almost all blocks made.
 * 2) Fix the coop: I'll call this one a failure. Mod-archiving of the coop has turned out to be spectacularly effective at ending drama. It also, necessarily, stifles user discussion. I still believe that RW needs a formal complaint-resolution system.

My promises for 2016:


 * 1) Democratize ninja: Ninjas can edit as a bot, which hides edits from the default recent changes. I'd like users to be able to request ninja rights, rather than have ninja rights handed down by the mods. If someone's clogging up recent changes (cough cough and ), send them over to RationalWiki:Mall ninja recruitment center (MNRC).
 * 2) Democratize tech: Techs can edit editfilter, give ninja rights, rename users, and edit MediaWiki-space. I'd like techs to become an extension of the moderator system. The current formal system (RationalWiki:Requests for tech rights) is never used. The current ad hoc system is for mods to hand down tech rights. Techs should probably be elected. (An alternative is to simply increase the number of mods.)
 * 3) Recreate RationalWiki:All things in moderation (ATIM): Reduce moderator abuse in two easy steps: 1: Make mods write up any significant actions on RW:ATIM. 2: Rejoice!
 * 4) Whine about making a better coop: Power to the formal complaint resolution system!

17:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific suggestions on making the coop better? 'Legion what do you want from me  05:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hipocrite
A vote for Hipocrite is a vote for none of the above, because that option is not made clear in the systems we use. I will do nothing with the Mod tools I could not do with the sysop tools. I will abstain in all moderator votes. I bindingly pledge now that use of "sysoprevoke," closing any Coop discussions or using whatever other modtools exist must result in the powers that be revoking my modship. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

N7.Geth
If elected, I will try to solve disputes calmly so they don't get out of hand *cough* Zionism *cough*. I feel like I'm the best person for the job because 1. Though it may not seem like it I'm quite current with the site and fairly active. 2. While I'm very well read about the various disputes around this wiki, I don't really have a stake in them and thus I believe I'll be fairly impartial going into settling them, and 3. I'm a fairly experienced user, having been registered on the site for 2 years now, and reading it anonymously for a bit longer. So even though I probably don't have too much of a chance since my name isn't known too well around here, I'll still try because, fuck it what else do I have going for me in life.


 * http://gethn7.blogspot.com/ you or not you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah another user told me about that, not me just a hilarious and strange coincidence. Also, why would you put the n7 after the name? As a matter of fact it's actually this guy. 'Legion what do you want from me  18:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3
I won't hesitate to take action if there's an obvious edit war taking place. If the parties involved won't talk it out, I'll lock the pages and even block them if they keep doing it; those disputes sap time and energy from other editing. I'd like to prevent coop cases from happening in the first place, rather than letting them go on for weeks and divert our attention. I'm also not going to put up with obvious trolls who are trying to disrupt the site. 02:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Being a mod allows you to view mod-deleted revisions. Will you be posting those on the doxing sites you visit? Hipocrite (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I don't have an account on any doxxing site, nor have I ever. I would never dox anyone in my life. 06:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean other than that time you already did? 13:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I never did, and these false accusations need to stop. 16:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In October this year you told another RW user that you know where he lives & what he looks like, info that the user had not shared on RW. Isn't that doxxing? Or at least info you obtained through doxxing? Or are you now denying that this happened? 17:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol. That silence is telling, PB. Very telling indeed. Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't use fallacies. There's no proof that user lived there. That user never claimed I did anything bad to him. These are false accusations against me. 18:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that the description you provided of that user & the name of the town you said he lived in are just stuff you made up? If not, where did that info (whether true or false) originate?  19:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So let's go through all these false accusations. First I was accused by Hipocrite of being the person that would post people's personal information on doxxing sites. I am not, I don't have an account on any such site, and I would never look through mod-deleted revisions to do any such thing. Then I was accused of telling another user I know what he looks like and where he lives. No evidence that I did this was ever produced. That's a pretty weak case. The only reason these people are attacking me is because they don't want me to have any power. It's that simple. If I was this terrible person they were making me out to be, do you think I would be running for this position? 01:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What is this, some lame attempt at Donald Trump style post-truth gaslighting bullshit?
 * Okay pal, here is you admitting to the thing you're now outright denying. 02:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I like how me saying "I only listed a region" counts as me admitting I doxxed someone. Of course, when the actual evidence is provided, it's half-hearted and doesn't prove the original point.
 * The hilarious thing here is that not only did I not reveal someone's name or address, but this was right after another user harassed me, described my physical appearance to a very close point, and made up lies about me to make me look bad. That user was not at all punished for obvious harassment and defamation, and that user is still here. And now I'm being defamed again. Terrible! 02:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 172.56.5.160 (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet more bullshit. What actually happened was the other user gave a description of how he imagined you to look, & you replied with "I look nothing like what you imagine" before telling him what you know him to look like & where he lives. & You still haven't confirmed how you would have come by that info.  12:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said what you said I said. Anyone can see the post he linked and see I said nothing of the sort. Stop putting words in my mouth.
 * "the other user in effect doxxed me by describing my exact physical appearance and harrassing me"
 * Listen to me, Weaseloid. This fucker found a picture of me online. He didn't bother to link to it but I know it's out there. He described my exact physical appearance to creep me the fuck out, and when I return the favor everyone flips out, and ends up vandal-bainning me at the end of the case! 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm directly quoting from your comment that I deleted from the Chicken Coop because it contained doxxing. It's in the page's edit history & I'm not going to be goaded into linking to it by your bullshit.  This was the comment in which you told someone you know where he lives & what he looks like, something you denied above but now seem to be acknowledging.   15:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no way for me to know for sure if that's him or not. I acknowledge that. Until you actually link what I said I can't really explain it in context, since I don't remember everything I said months ago. You know what would be nice though? Actually discussing what we would do as moderators. So far in this discussion, we've determined that I wouldn't post moderator-deleted revisions on doxxing sites. Are there any other questions? 16:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We've established that you're a liar, a coward & a hypocrite. Congratulations & good luck with the election. 23:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Being a moderator is much more than just being able to ban people or close discussions or lock pages. You should know that, Weaseloid, and if you don't, ask FCP or David Gerard and they'll tell you all about it. Being a mod makes you part of another class, able to guide site discussion and direction. It allows you to propose new policies that get implemented after discussion. It gives you a certain 'clout', respected by some, not by others. To simply say "oh, well you're wrong because that's not what mods do" is pretty moronic. I hope you retract to save face. 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On most sites this would be true but if I've read RW's guides correctly, and I'm pretty sure I have, on here mods are just users with a couple of extra functions and help keep the peace in especially egregious cases of abuse. Ideally, they shouldn't have any more or less clout than anyone else. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally. Rational1 and Pb3 are correct that mods tend to have more clout. But I suspect this is a self-fulfilling (or self-selecting) prophecy: the users who have more clout win the mod election, and so the mods tend to have more clout than most users. In practice, users seem to be as quick to shit on mods as to shit on other users. 20:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that why you are running for moderator, ? So you can have more clout? So you can be like a man who joins the police force so he can get a shiny badge, shoot dogs, and beat people with a nightstick? So that you can win arguments by declaring "I AM ALL POWERFUL MODERATOR"? So you can remove User:-Mona-'s sysoprevoke, add sysoprevoke to the people you dislike, while having the clout to make the change stick? 76.5.20.58 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just an evil asshole who wants to rule this wiki like Qaddafi and "beat people" and "shoot dogs". Seriously? Does anyone buy this shit? And while we're at it, I don't give a damn about Mona, and I promise I won't ban any standing users as moderator. 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your promises don't mean jack. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1, yes they do. 2, you're a bunch of numbers? You're really gonna lecture a long-time user? I'm not gonna be a Guantanamo interrogator! Now quit the strawmanning and go eat a pizza (or a cubano if that's your state's cuisine). 04:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Granted you don't know any better, but seriously, don't brag to me about being a "long-time user." I'm a member of the old guard, from days where people like you would be mocked and run off the site. You're still wet behind the ears to me. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Rational1
As a moderator, I would work towards introducing various strategies to make RationalWiki more creditable and convincing. I would also work towards various new topics and sections to help RationalWiki grow in terms of both quality and quantity.

How will I do that?

1. Neutral approach: Sometimes, even the most rational people/organizations make irrational statements, and vice-versa. Right now, most of our articles speak only one side of the story, which makes readers think that the whole article is written by "fans" or "haters". Making it neutral would mean increased reader trust.

2. Counter the best arguments: On most, if not all of the pages, I see 'weaker versions' of arguments getting countered. We have to counter the best and most strong version of arguments prevalent among irrational groups and organizations, otherwise the reader just thinks, "oh, yes, but..." and isn't convinced that the group/organization in question is irrational.

3. Standardized Formatting: Unlike Wikipedia, each and every page here has it's own formatting and structure. I will work towards implementing common formatting and structure anywhere and everywhere possible. This would make our pages more readable.

4. Media Biases: We have covered Logical Biases and frequently point to these articles on talk pages, but we are a long way to go when it comes to Media Biases such as "Bias by Omission", among others. I will work towards detailed articles on these topics and implement policies to avoid such biases in any of our articles.

5 Statistics: We need a portal on Statistics, where we explain how surveys are supposed to be conducted and now they are to be interpreted. These pages would then be used to debunk several groups and individuals.

6. Covering other nations: All talks and discussions are centered around USA, I will work towards growing RW in my country, India, by creating whole new sections and inviting people in. Rational1 (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * None of that appears to have anything to do with what a RW moderator's role is supposed to be. 17:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A lot of high level changes needs to be made, would be much easier with moderator rights. Rational1 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * How so? 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am proposing massive changes in almost all the pages here. I would need co-operation and understanding from people here. I will need their trust.

I am proposing changes to the way we deal with people we disagree with. Under "Eliminating Bias by Omission" rules that I would establish, all criticism, irrational statements and misleading statements in regard to the given topic will be posted and we will counter them ASAP, together as a community. In some cases, there may be some delay in countering these irrational statements, it may look like we are loosing the war against irrationality, but I need to show that the very possibility of any and all biases need to be eliminated. Our articles will be so good that the irrationals will realize their irrationality.

I can't make these changes alone, I will have empower people who are supporting these new, tougher rules and standards and control those who aren't.

In the current state of RW, I can easily create pages on Indian politicians and populate them with biased and incorrect statements, attract others with similar views to RW and dominate. After few months/years when people of opposing views come in, we can easily call them irrational on talk pages, put them in vandil bin, protect the pages and what not.

Under my system, people with opposite ideology won't have any need to cause trouble, there won't be any edit wars, and so no ideological blocking. Rational1 (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok so based on what has been going on in the site... What is your view on current debates on RW, e.g. concerning MGTOW? What changes wold you be making? Do you agree the approcah to it has had problems? Thanks 155.4.130.19 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really doubt that Rational1's system, even if it worked as intended, would lead to an end to edit wars or that people with opposite ideologies would magically stop causing trouble by bickering here on RW. I also think the statement "I will have empower people who are supporting these new, tougher rules and standards and control those who aren't" sounds particularly ominous, but then I was elected for (and have generally stuck to) the "minimal mod" school of thought, so maybe it's just me. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * People who don't follow rules get placed under vandal bin, what's ominous about that? Here is how I would solve all edit wars:

This has to be on the articles' page and not talk pages. This would be a part of the page, all remaining sections on the page will be unchanged. Rational1 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not just no, but hell no to giving carte blanche for every nutcase being able to write anything they like on our pages, especially mainspace. Have you seen the kind of raving anti Semites and racists who occasionally pop up here? Removing that under your vague "decency" clause will lead to edit wars. I don't think it's a good idea to let any crank post their crap without doing more than politely saying they are wrong as that would give the impression that their points have merit and that they deserve equal time and space (for instance, this is the core of the climate change denialist tactic). We don't need to go over all the billion conspiracies or PRATTs and we certainly should not allow any crank who feel like it to post unedited crap as if RW was their bulletin board.
 * My guess would be that edit wars would simply shift to wikilawyering over when your vague "language, decency etc." rules allow for stuff to be removed. Not to mention that such a format would probably make the articles far less readable.
 * As for throwing people in the vandal bin for not following a vague set of rules or a format that you happen to find appropriate, yes, that sounds quite ominous to me. I suggest you conduct a trial run to see if your system works and you don't need mod powers to do this or to convince other editors of why RW should adopt your system.
 * Around here, mods are supposed to put a brake on flame wars and trolls, not running around policing everything. I think you got things backwards if you think that you need to start by getting mod powers, and then beat editors into line. Instead, you need to convince enough other editors of the merits of your system and only then do you maybe have a case for getting extra powers. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you thinks the rules are vague? They will be clearly defined. Only a small part of the page is given over to the other side, there are lots of restrictions on its usage and all of it is to avoid the possibilities of some very serious biases. Rational1 (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, I suspect that it will simply shift the spats to wikilawyering over when the rules are being broken and when transgressors should be put in/taken out of the vandal bin. As for vagueness, "decency" is a vague criterion, just think of the American Decency Association. I fear we'll end up spending far more time drafting, revising and enforcing this code than is currently spent on cleaning up and for a result that is not markedly better or possibly even worse than what we have. Still, I may be wrong, hence why I suggested a trial run to see how it pans out in practice. Any suggestions for pages you think would be suitable labs? Of course we'll need some kind of consensus from the mob to run the experiment, but an initiative that promises to improve things around here should not be an issue impossible sale. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

For trail run, I would suggest that the MRA page. We already have this table structure over there. These are the rights that would be given to MRAs and their supporters: (i) They can edit "MRA Argument" side of the table so as to make their arguments sound more convincing/strong. (ii) They can add rows to the table and fill up the "MRA Argument" side with new arguments, they don't need to discuss anything on talk page before doing this. (iii) Change/edit/add arguments to counter us. We will restrict ourselves, so as to not delete their arguments or edit them to sound less convincing/strong. We will restrict them: (i)All rules and regulations of the website to be followed (ii) Only arguments that they consider as irrefutable (iii) Provide reference/links to MRAs actually raising the argument, somewhere on the internet, (iv) Provide reference/links to support their points (optional). When new arguments are added on their side, our side of the table will be empty. We are to fill it ASAP with the best counter we can. If the argument is really sane and irrefutable, we have to accept it.

What would be the benefit here? Under the current system, I can easily open up pages on topics you guys don't know about (ex., Indian Politics), fill it with all biased statements supporting only one political party, individual. Ban, vandal bin, protect pages when anyone challenges, overtime attract people with similar views and give them powers. Cycle repeats forever. The best arguments from the other side are always raised only on the talk pages and never reach the actual article - thus constituting "Bias by omission". Readers understand this and turn away. "Rationalwiki has been taken over by congress devotees", they will say.

Now, does that sounds similar? "Rationalwiki has been taken over by feminist", says MRAs. This provision of allocating a small space on each article will eliminate the possibility of any such "taken over" in the past, present and the future. Everyone's trust on our content would increase. It's an open challenge anyone and everyone who disagrees with us - bring in your best points, we will counter them. Rational1 (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's either a general problem or that adding a "pro et contra bulletin board" at the bottom of articles are going to make allegations of the "RW has been taken over by [insert pet bugbear here]!" whining go away. Claiming that, in general, RW tackles only the weakest arguments or that the best arguments/objections are generally found on the talk pages is also something of a stretch.
 * I really don't care much for MRAs or for what someone on Reddit complains about, but neither do I think that the amount of space documenting identity politics is taking up versus actual debunking of crank ideas is a healthy sign and I do view some of the "gender articles" as being a bit different from the majority of RW articles in that they are battlegrounds for identity politics which is why they see more frequent edit wars. Though the occasional racist and anti Semite still drops by once in a while, the MRA community (to the extent it makes sense to conceive of it in this singular notion) seems far more active. However, I don't think it's a sign of a huge omission bias in which RW is deliberately keeping out all the brilliant pro MRA, or what have you, arguments. When I have occasionally dropped by some of the masculinity/femininity pages, the talk pages seem more to be filled with generalised whining than brilliant ripostes.
 * My only real problem was when discussing the (in)famous Anita Sarkeesian and "Gamergate" (put in scare quotes because it was not actually a scandal, but more of a hate campaign on a flimsy background, see later) because the debate seemed to be polarising into either MRA trolls or Sarkeesian fanboys and -girls (my own view being that her pop cultural analyses are crap, her arguments weak, her objectives muddled, and her style far too reliant on condescendingly implying that game designers have suspect motives and that those playing the games are somehow engaged in or supporting acts of repression against women. That said, the ridiculous amount of hate mail, trolling and threats she and her allies received due to "Gamergate" is a sign of a demented online, and offline, culture of MRA asshats with an effed up sense of entitlement and self-importance who love bragging and riling each other up into frothing mob campaigns against whatever happens to raise their ire. However, that latter phenomenon is largely unrelated to the merits of Sarkeesian's pop cultural analysis). But please, let's not open up that can of worms again - it's like the freaking Israel/Palestine debates, bar the fact that the latter at least involve clear, political grievances.
 * So, while I doubt your model is likely to achieve its objective, I'm at least curious to see how it might work out in practice. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In a game, it doesn't matters if any of the players have actually cheated. The very possibility of cheating corrodes people's interest. Rational1 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...What the hell kinda deepity is that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an actual statement that many in the game design community make and one which you will find in some game design books too. In "Gamification" circles, it's also used to talk about social websites such as Stackoverflow, which has a system in which cheating is very rare and difficult.
 * I would like it if you don't just "debunk" but also "discuss" the points I raise. None of it makes sense to you?
 * Last but not the least, what kind of standards have been set fourth on the "Logic" portal. Only the most sound and academically accepted concepts have been written down or have you guys enjoyed some liberty? Rational1 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Hi guys! I'm a bit late to the party, so I'll keep things short and sweet.

We're electing 2 alternative mods as well this time around. That likely means that letting the electorate fish out one extra card from the pile and adding it to their hand won't do any harm. Thus, here I am.

You all know me to some extent — RMF board member, and a most fallible mammal, just like everybody else. I try my best to operate my roughly 3 pound brain under the circumstances, and what I can promise without embarassment is that I have genuine care for the members of our community, as well as for RationalWiki as a whole.

I try to remain aware of (and resist) bias as far as humanly possible. According to myself — a source most fair and balanced — I am generally slow to anger, yet quick to forgive. I'm a bit like the Russian police — stern, but fair. I genuinely try to do what I can to earn the friendship of all. I steer clear of drama as best I can, and generally, I'm never to be found at the center of it — but maybe that's a desirable feature in a moderator?

Despite (or perhaps "thanks to") my ADHD, I'm at almost 13,000 edits for 2016 (set it to Month: All and Year: 2016), beating our most active bot! This translates to roughly 35 edits a day — which ought to mean I meet any activity requirements.

My philosophy of moderation, in a nutshell:

Good luck to everyone in the election, and Goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid


I'm here. I'm Weaseloid. Get used to it. 17:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Methinks it is like a weasel. -Totally not Richard Dawkins (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we just all admire this campaign poster from 2011?
 * [[File:Weasel_Lord.png]]
 * 17:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IT'S SOO-HO-HO BEAUTIFU-HU-HUL [[File:Cry2.gif]] Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What the- 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidate fact sheet
''': User since July 2016. Currently a sysop.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) User has not pissed tons of people off, unlike some others on this list. 18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny, my main account is in sysoprevoke, but I have three sleepy accounts which haven't pissed anyone off. I should throw my hat in the ring with one of those, and get Pbfreetroll to endorse me. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Doesn't cause trouble- 06:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) This person seems fine. 70.194.226.176 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Disliked by bad folks. Having a user with low edits and good views would be better than one with high edit count and a bad history. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Not active enough. 162 edits this year. Given their half-year presence here, that's about 0.9 edits/day. No hard feelings! Keep up the good work! :) 23:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So essentially you are saying I'm as unqualified as an unnamed BoN 142.124.55.236, who was only a user for 6 months when they got elected? OK. Applesauce (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An edit a day keeps the doctor away gets FCP on your case. 02:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 142 had been an active IP editor for a year, I believe. Not comparable. 03:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He also had over three thousand edits when he got elected. So is that the threshold for being eligible to be a mod? Gotcha. *snark* Applesauce (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean... kinda? :P IMO, mods need to be active enough to stop ongoing vandalism. That's my major concern. :) 23:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry. I'll crack down hard on obvious vandalism. I already have if you check my user actions page. Applesauce (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Tries to protect a page to appease an idiot, fails epically at it. If one can't properly protect a page, he is not ready to be a mod. 172.58.168.110 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Not terrible, but too new a user. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) What fuzzy said; not enough activity and edits to become a moderator, but still a nice user. Keep up the good work! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Not active enough. B) talk 20:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)



''': User since July 2015. Currently in sysoprevoke and vandal binned.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Just because I won't let this one be hated more than Pb. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) A political troll. A known drama-raising ideology-pusher. Avenger spams sock accounts like they're going out of style and whines when they get banned. Hard fucking feelings. 02:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with FCP. AOB is the worst choice (so far) for mod. Bongolian (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Issue troll, has made at least 4 sockpuppet account to continue pushing his political agenda here, blatantly violating rules and getting into time-sapping arguments. 23:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * NO, for the reasons stated above. Even if this user is not Avenger, they created an account to troll. 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why are people allowed to nominate themselves? Preventing self-nomination would also cut down on this nonsense. Bongolian (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Ungodly terrible user who needs to be as far away from power as possible. 70.194.226.176 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Literally Hitler. 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) More drama than he's worth. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Sigh... ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) No B) talk 20:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Utterly terrible crap. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

''': User since May 2014. Currently a sysop.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Capable, sane, active, and anti-drama. 17:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Probably sane and capable.- 22:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Diplomatic, very active. I hope mod responsibilities wouldn't too greatly diminish this person's edit count. B) talk 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems sane enough. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Dedicated, talented, kind. What's not to love? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Seems like good people to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Looking good. Diplomatic and actually tried to solve disputes instead of letting them go on for months. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Pretty nice and good. Applesauce (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements



''': User since September 2016. Currently a sysop.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Not insane.- 22:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems competent. I don't buy the inexperience argument, especially when most of the other mods will likely be old timers. If they're new, learn 'em the ways. B) talk 20:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gender-neutral pronoun consideration :) 20:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) This guy Shabi  DOO  17:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Enthusiastic but inexperienced. No hard feelings. :) 02:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I would agree your comment. I appreciate the feedback. :) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Same as Fuzzy. So far a good user, and we need the fresh blood, but too new. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) What Fuzzy said. Still a great guy, though! CBF is also gifted with the rare ability of being humble in error, which demands my respect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)



''': User since January 2014. Currently a tech.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) A very healthy baby boy — the best baby boy. Nuthin' better than a beautiful baby boy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems alright. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) - 19:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Yup B) talk 20:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 20:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Better than most of the other lot here. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements



''': User since August 2008. Currently a moderator and RMF boardmember.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Capable, sane, active, and knows RW's tech workings. 17:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Nice guy and already has experience. 21:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Level-headed & experienced, an excellent choice for mod. Bongolian (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Doesn't put up with any shit from the trolls, and is dedicated to the wiki's mission. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC
 * 5) Probably the most qualified person running, with experience on numerous wikis. Pbfreespace3 is full of ****. 76.5.20.58 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Helped me out with some issues, and the devil I know Deku-shrub (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Obvious candidate with longstanding experience as mod & RMF officer. 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Is already critical to the wiki. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorsement by analogy: If this goat herd is the RW community, the camera man is DG — dialect and all ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) In his time as a moderator, he contributed to blocking Aneris. Although Aneris was being confrontational over ideological issues, they were very important issues that desperately needed attention on this site, and he banned Aneris for his view on feminism and social justice advocates, not because of actually doing anything wrong. This kind of ideological blocking is one of the big things that's wrong with the leadership right now. Please note that my anti-endorsement isn't because I have any hard feelings towards this user. 18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is bullshit for reasons documented below. 00:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not. David Gerard helped ban Aneris because he disagreed with Aneris' stance on social justice issues. That's an ideological block, plain and simple. RationalWiki needs to stop banning people just because they disagree with the official Politburo position party line. 02:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge Aneris was banned for defaming a certain person as a pedophile and be annoying. While it David may be wrong for preemptively banning Aneris without a coop case, the mob didn't care enough to make a coop case about said action. Why don't you create a coop case instead of bringing this drama here? 03:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a section where we're supposed to discuss the pros and cons of each candidate. Since David Gerard supports ideological blocking, that fits perfectly in here. If it's 'drama', it's not my fault. He's the one who blocked Aneris for disagreeing with him. And don't get it twisted: that was an ideological block. David Gerard and other RMF members had it out for Aneris all along; they were just waiting for him to do something remotely bad, so they could pounce and remove him from the site. It's a disgrace. 05:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PB: A violation of site policy is ideological edit warring? nobs 11:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Pb "David Gerard and other RMF members had it out for Aneris all along"  * Groan *  It's so cringy watching you proclaim boldly about other people's private intentions (in an utterly no less) — especially when their public interactions don't even match up with your theories (never mind the private ones, about which you have no clue). You seem a better fit for moderator at PrisonPlanet.com than you do RationalWiki with that ridiculous mindset.  Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a conspiracy theory to describe that Aneris we disliked by a lot of RationalWiki members because he opposed feminism and progressivism. It's a description of factual reality. We have a strawman, a falsehood, and an ad hominem attack. Got anything else? Tu quoque, perhaps? 16:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hate the sin and love the sinner. This site is extremely tolerant, indeed welcoming, of divergent views - within its mission statement. Nobody is disliked for editing in good faith. A persons' edits rise and fall on the strength of their persuasiveness to the community, and the readership at large. It's insulting to say someone was driven off cause other's personal prejudices ruled the day. The Trustees have a much larger obligation beyond themselves, to see and maintain that the project survives another day. nobs 16:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to be very clear to the community, since there's confusion. The following has nothing to do with my opinions on David Gerard as a moderator:  Neither annoyingness nor ideology had anything to do with aneris' permaban.  It was 100% using rationalwiki as a platform to engage in active and severe defamation of private individuals, which is one of the few activities that, by precedent, necessitates board intervention.  Please feel free to tell every one of the moderators and board members to fuck off and that we're full of shit as obnoxiously as you please.  I'll say you're full of shit right back.  Please feel free to hold any perspective you want, as long as that perspective isn't that random comments on the internet prove a private individual is a pedophile, and that being asked not to post that means you haven't argued the point hard enough.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the Pbfreespace3. 76.5.20.58 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Led the place into the deep end of banning people he has grudges with, fixing points of view to his liking, and protecting other users who absolutely needed to go. Things have only gotten worse. 70.194.226.176 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. This BoN's only edit is the above anti-endorsement. Why are sock puppets (who can't vote) allowed to even comment on an election with unsubstantiated allegations? Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, right? Maybe you should protect the page to autoconfirmed-only status, in order to prevent sockpuppets and foreign influences from swaying the election. I will endorse you immediately if you do this. 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Ran the wiki into the ground with policies that did bad things toward good users and good things toward bad users. He protected some of the worst lot here, and it has not helped this place. He's quick to block people he doesn't like for nothing. It's completely ridiculous. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Goat
 * 1) I can't quite outright endorse DG, but I'd definitely not anti-endorse him. Mostly a solid guy and his awesome tech skills are crucial to RW, but sometimes has an itchy trigger finger on the block button. Your mileage may vary, but mostly it's good. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) To extend RBP's analogy, most of the time he's the cameraman. Occasionally he's Kevin. B) talk 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)



''': User since May 2016. Currently a sysop.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Seems like a nice guy. Also a fellow Californian, I think. Power to the Golden State! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Awesome and intelligent.- 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems nice. 23:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Nice guy. Never had a problem with him. 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Nice. Sane. Fine. 70.194.226.176 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Friendliest person I've encountered here, and capable. B) talk 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Just a nation of coolheadedness and honesty. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Friendly and helpful. Applesauce (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Enthusiastic but inexperienced. No hard feelings. :) 02:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, no hard feelings over your honest opinion. :)- 03:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As a counter-argument, I will argue that I have browsed the site a lot and have made many edits for just half a year.- 02:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Both fair points! My concern is mostly that newer users sometimes don't know RW culture/institutions (such as they are) as well as necessary. That's not to say that you wouldn't make a great moderator -- just that I can't endorse you for that. 23:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I've looked through the logs. No thanks, you remind me too much of Pb3 with your abusive language. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Valuable addition to wiki, but sadly too new. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think I would make a great moderator.- 00:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So far two people have been sending out anti-endorsements based on time on the wiki, CorruptUser and FuzzyCatPotato. Both are running for moderator and I do not find this to be a coincidence. As long as the user has been on the wiki for at least four months and has been consistently active, I see this as enough experience and not an example of wiki-ageism; let's rise above stereotyping, shall we? I plan to vote for DiamondDisc1 and other users because I see them as good users my decision will not be decided by ageism .   01:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Conspiratorial ageism is probably not what's going on, if that's what you're suggesting. "Experience" is hard to measure (someone's time here may not reflect how prepared they are for a mod role) but more time spent here does make it more likely that 1) a user knows their way around the site, 2) user knows how to respond to a given event as a mod, and 3) other users have had time to evaluate the user and trust that they're a good candidate. I'm not sure I see a compelling argument against a majority of experienced mods in combo with a couple newer ones, though. But, then again, I'm "inexperienced". :) B) talk 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the only conspiratorial post I made that day. 21:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ageism, but not conspiratorial ageism, I just want them to experience at least one dramafest first. Otherwise, my opinion of DD is pretty high, wouldn't mind him as supreme overlord janitor's assistant. CorruptUser (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) What Fuzzy said. Regardless, I'm still a big personal fan of the diamond disc. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * C'mon! RW needs some new moderators to freshen up every once in a while!- 19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And RW will get at least one new mod as I'm currently a mod but not running for reelection. Not to mention that this was my first term and I was elected after having been a registered user for about a year and a half with an edit count of around 4500, meaning that voters had some idea about where I stood. If you mean that RW should have mods with a shorter history of activity on the site, then I don't see why this is crucial. It's not unreasonable to use experience as one of the criteria on which to base (anti-)endorsements and a track record gives voters a better chance of not taking a blind leap. Turning this into some kind of unfair ageism is simply absurd. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see.- 08:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

''': User since June 2013. Currently a moderator and RMF boardmember.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) I agree with pretty much everything he's ever suggested. Knows what he's doing and actually wants the job. Spud (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) A cat who is energetic and dedicated to the mission. Appears sane, and has done good work curating the cruft on the wiki. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) A highly capable moderator, and a diligent contributor. Bongolian (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Sensible admin, as R-W admins go. 76.5.20.58 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Level-headed and extremely active. B) talk 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Critical to the wiki, writes actual code for us. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Apart from an obsession with rule making (which, however, thankfully seems to be on the wane) Fuzzy is a good and solid pillar of the community. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) This guy Shabi  DOO  17:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Either you are with him, or you are with the terrorists. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

</li>
 * Anti-endorsements
 * In his time as a moderator, he contributed to blocking Aneris. Although Aneris was being confrontational over ideological issues, they were very important issues that desperately needed attention on this site, and he banned Aneris for his view on feminism and social justice advocates, not because of actually doing anything wrong. This kind of ideological blocking is one of the big things that's wrong with the leadership right now. Please note that my anti-endorsement isn't because I have any hard feelings towards this user.  18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's completely false, Pb. I'm positive that not even Aneris himself would agree with your scattershot analysis here. Firstly, Fuzzy has always been the moderator most willing to speak on genuinely friendly terms with Aneris. Why you would name Fuzzy as part of a veritable plot against Aneris is beyond me. Secondly; the moderation staff played no role in Aneris' unfortunate and self-inflicted banning. The ban was a last-resort decision of the RMF board, of which FuzzyCatPotato is also a member. The fact that the offices of moderator and board member overlap in a person doesn't mean that they overlap in authority, practice, context or "jurisdiction". Said overlap is thus irrelevant, and to conflate Fuzzy's role as moderator with his role as board member is just plain wrong. Further, the reasons for Aneris' ban had nothing to do with his views (some of which were quite compatible with my own, and all of which were interesting — I even asked him to write a book!) and everything to do with his behaviour, which put the site at significant legal risk. To suggest that "ideological blocking" is somehow rampant at RW these days is a joke. Visit any controversial talk page and you'll see us regularly engage users that disagree with us. I've rarely seen anyone blocked for his views, and I believe myself to see quite a bit of what goes on here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RBP.
 * @Pb: I have actively opposed ideological blocking. You may not remember: this is Aneris' second block. I personally intervened the first time to prevent his blocking. This time, it's clear that Aneris crossed a line. (I'll not rehash that here.) In private communications, I offered to help him return; he rejected these efforts. Furthermore, I have removed all incidences in which RW engages in the behavior that Aneris calls hypocritical -- namely, alleging (against other people) the same thing as Aneris alleged (against one person) without legal evidence. IOW: You're wrong, thrice over. 00:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PB is correct. Conveniently, all evidence was deleted, despite that the relevant links were to public and official sources, a Medium article written by Person A and on blog network owned by Person B. This alone tells you everything. The people themselves see no problem with the views they expressed, and host on their own blogs, and for which they were critisized. Further, a stronger accusation and real defamation was in article space (which was baseless and which I asked to remove). So curiously, the situation is 180 degrees distorted. I was against such inclusions! This was the reason why I brought up the other cases, and I tried with argument before (the context was being hypocritical). When Fuzzy finally deleted this article space smear, the reason for “going there” was resolved anyway, so in addition a banning achieved nothing. What's more, If the reasons cited here were correct, you'd also have the curious situation that Statement X is okay in article space, but when you repeat it in talk space, for example to point out hypocritical doublestandards, you can get banned for it? — this cannot be right. Think about it. Since my statements contained nothing that was not also in article space, you cannot ban someone for writing something similar. Too bad, there is also this flaw.  And finally the claim that the ban was reversible is utter bogus too. It was never an option. It would require to grow a spine and stand up. To his credit, Fuzzy did this, but ultimately went with the groupthink flow. The ban was long coming, and multiple (and unsual) attempts from sock puppetry, frivolous COOPs and even “glitches” were tried before. Bonus: don't let them tell you this has to do with Left-Right Wing views. That's ludicrous, too. Chomskyian-Sokal leftist is neither a “classical liberal” and certainly not conservative. Be sceptical, and protect contrarians in the future, instead of singling them out and abusing them (or pretending they are all the same outgroup team). If you want to contact me, feel free to use board mail. This worked. Generally, they deleted the evidence, no reason to believe them. Scepticism 101. And removal of names or specific wording was possible. No hard feelings, but stick to the truth. (this sock was originally and legitly created when the “glitch” happened, but of course I respect the ban). ~   02:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris, my response in two questions:
 * Why did you reject efforts to unban you?
 * 4 boardmembers of 5 voted to ban you. Who do you think was the exception?
 * 03:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want the deleted content email me, it's viewable by sysops. Also I supported your ban because of your confrontational attitude.  03:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 76.5.20.58 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Kind of a jerk. Who writes multiple "anti-endorsements"? Taba (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to your interests. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are insufferable. Go away, useless troll. Taba (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Set this up without wiki text making it awkward to edit. This shows his lack of judgement. Taba (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Two above arguments sum it up quite well. Is literally trying to take over the entire place. Changed parts of the community guidelines and mission statement without consensus or even discussion, indicating a bad mindset. 70.194.226.176 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * RE: Changed guidelines and mission: Here's the context. I moved text from Template:RationalWiki MainPage/About to Template:Mission and text from RationalWiki:Community Standards to RationalWiki:Mission after asking the bar about exactly that. TLDR: Discussion happened, the community standards and mission statement were moved (not changed), & (mission is easier than RationalWiki MainPage/About. 23:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhhhh... that's not what I was referring to. Nice try. 173.88.182.123 (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are the same things (click the Community Standards link). 04:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a better example: Recently FCP resurrected the Template:Badsource template without community consensus. 09:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Thinks the wiki is his own personal sandbox playpen he can do whatever he wants with. He avoids making it seem this way upfront, as that would damage his credibility with the mods and upper sysops. It's a very devious way of trying to push his point of view, and it can't bode well. You need consensus and agreements, not autocracy. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

''': User since January 2010. Currently a sysop.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Sane, don't have anything bad to say about him. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Redacted. CorruptUser (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

</li>
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) I anti endorse him because of a list of reasons I don't have the time to get into now.
 * 2) Has all the calm and clarity of a mudslide — exactly what you want in a moderator. Thinks that I am (quote) "literally the scum of the earth" and informed me that (quote) "you're lying about your involvement, lying about your motivation, lying about the rules. Lie, after lie, after lie. Stop fucking lying.", summing me up as (quote) "an asshole" and a (quote) "dishonest serial liar". And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) For reasons Reverend Black Percy has stated. 18:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) No. 20:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Nope nope nope B) talk 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) What that person above me said. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Looks like he's not very good. Applesauce (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

''': User since November 2014. Currently a sysop.'''

</li>
 * Endorsements
 * 1) User has not pissed tons of people off, unlike some others on this list. 18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) - 19:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Has been endorsed by decent folks. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Looks decent. Applesauce (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Not active enough (194 edits this year; that's 0.53 edits per day). No hard feelings. :) 02:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While I don't edit that much, I browse around the sight daily, including talk pages, and I will try to edit more in the future 'Legion what do you want from me  02:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be mean! :) The low edit count just makes me worry that you wouldn't be obsessively-watching-recent-changes enough to catch vandalism in progress. Keep up the good work!! 23:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) What Fuzzy said. No hard feelings though! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) What Fuzzy said B) talk 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

''': User since May 2015. Currently in sysoprevoke.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) I hereby endorse this person, solely for the reason that the people who dislike him are bad users. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) **Pb, it's pretty bad that your only endorsement is from your own BoN sock, and believe me, you're not fooling anyone. You are as disliked as Avenger, and that is pretty bad. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Has a notable history of handing out lengthy unilateral blocks for frivolous reasons, sometimes accompanied by threats to dox or sue.  Also, he fairly recently posted personal info about another RW user's location & offline life which he'd found out from another website.  03:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Whiney and attracts drama.  21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) What Weaseloid said. 00:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Are you kidding me? 76.5.20.58 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Being in sysoprevoke (or committing recent or repeated doxing) should be an automatic disqualification for mod. Bongolian (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) He should be banned for repeated legal threats and docksing, not promoted (or demoted as you guys say) to moderator. 172.58.168.110 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't know if he should've been let out of the vandal bin, let alone made a mod. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Admittedly the best moderator on the official David Icke forums. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Not mod material. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) B) talk 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

</li>

''': User since November 2016. Currently autopatrolled.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) I don't see anything hourly won't with NPOV as long as it's fact-based and makes logical sense. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) Somebody who's been here a month, doesn't understand a moderator's role, & wants to make the site NPOV + fill articles with a load of false balance, seems like not a great choice. 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All irrational statements ever made would always be countered. As a new user, I can see so many problems here that everyone else can't see because they have got so "used to" this website. I am promising a ban on ideological blocking just like everyone else. Let me tell you this as someone who doesn't has much knowledge about Gamergate or US politicians and activist, when I read their articles here, it's not convincing, none of them are convincing, there are so so many articles online which raise points that haven't be countered here at all. When I talk about "irrational statements being allowed", I mean that these points will be included in articles and we are to counter them ASAP, together as a community. Rational1 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have been here for years, and yet there are multiple portals worth of biases and common misconceptions missing? Rational1 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello one-monther. A moderator is a regulator in moments of headless chicken mode, not an administrator or staff position. As a moderator, one is a janitor. I see that you think that a moderator is some position the gives a lot of control — this is not true. If you have a problem with an article, EDIT IT and talk with people on the talkpage. If you have an issue with the entire wiki, there's nothing you can do to change the entire infrastructure as a sysop, moderator, or regular user. It's like asking wikipedia to get rid of its neutral tone; it's just not going to happen. 09:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) What Weasel said; especially the "wants to make the site NPOV + fill articles with a load of false balance" part. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Media Biases are not jokes. Bias by Omission is not a joke. They are the reason why lots of people do not believe news sources, and if we don't make systems to fight against it here, majority of people won't believe us either. Rational1 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Fails to see the point of moderator. 17:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My pitch is long because I am enthusiastic and have lots of ideas, that doesn't means I don't understand moderation. Rational1 (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Contra the others here: Moderator does seem to imbue some sense of community approval. Contra Rational1: Moderators cannot change site policy, such as the RW mission statement or SPOV -- and given that a mod's term is but one year, I doubt that the marginal increase of social power could feasibly change anything about the site. To Rational1: If you need proof that mods have little social capital, look at the million odd rules I've proposed between December '15 and December '16 and see how they've worked out. A less conflict-ridden path to success might be to write successful and interesting and editwarless NPOV articles, in order to show that the model works. I don't think you'll succeed, but I wish you much luck. In addition: At just 95 edits this year, I have little hope you'll catch vandalism -- which is the only real power a mod has. In short: I don't feel you understand the social politics of RationalWiki and its 300-odd active sysops. If you live up to your namesake and put in the work, you can succeed in December 2017. 20:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) What Fuzzy said B) talk 20:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand you guys being skeptic of a new user. The less conflict ridden path is what I have always intended to do. I just saw that elections were up and used this opportunity to pitch my thoughts to the most active users here. No matter weather I win or loose I will discuss my thoughts with you guys and see where can we go. In the long run, any organization has to improve, if it doesn't some other organization will soon replace it. Rational1 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

</li>

''': User since May 2015. RMF boardmember and resident hunk.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) The Rev. does good work around here and I don't think the awesome mod powers will corrupt him (too much). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) A person who is fairly active on the wiki, understands how the site works, and is generally a nice guy. He has my vote. I'd be surprised if he gets one anti-endorsement. 17:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I support the Good Reverend. Has shown hezself to be quite valuable around here. CorruptUser (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) A big, succulent grape. And a killer choice for a mod B) talk 19:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) more moderator memes = better moderation. just the facts, folks 20:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Appropriately level headed and diplomatic. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Appears absolutely wonderful. 70.198.203.110 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) This guy  Shabi  DOO  17:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) I know that this guy has been trough some wild shit TheGrandmother (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) The plus sides to Percy as mod are: he is nowhere near as inclined to flip his shit at annoying shitheads as I am, but once he's recognized a problem, he's pretty good about quietly and affirmatively standing for the most reasonable position he can. Only downside is you do occasionally need mods who flip their shit.  Rarely though, so some nice, quiet, reliable ones are good too.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Reasonable and active contributor. Applesauce (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anti-endorsements

</li>

''': User since 31 July 2008. Currently a moderator.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Capable, active, and sane. Annoyingly, they often disagree with me. Even more annoyingly, they often have a good point. 23:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Experienced.- 01:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) A capable moderator, worthy of re-election. Bongolian (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Sane and (usually) reasonable. Seemed like a very competent mod last term. B) talk 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) A pretty cool dude. Spud (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) I support. CorruptUser (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) "He pursued and I withdrew, and I pursued and he withdrew... And so, we danced." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) RW needs a weasel. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Has used mod powers only a few times, and every single occasion was to stop a user from being an obnoxious shit making the wiki harder to use. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements
 * 1) In his time as a moderator, he contributed to blocking Aneris. Although Aneris was being confrontational over ideological issues, they were very important issues that desperately needed attention on this site, and he banned Aneris for his view on feminism and social justice advocates, not because of actually doing anything wrong. This kind of ideological blocking is one of the big things that's wrong with the leadership right now. Please note that my anti-endorsement isn't because I have any hard feelings towards this user.  18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? Aneris was blocked as a decision of the RMF board, which I'm not involved in. Moderators had no say in it. 19:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

</li>

''': User since June 2013. Currently a tech.'''


 * Endorsements
 * 1) Capable, sane, and knows RW's tech workings. 17:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) - 02:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Ditch the hero, get with the Zero. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems fine B) talk 20:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Anti-endorsements

</li></ol>