Forum:Mod election 2015

Not a program for revolutionary change

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki talk:Community Standards. (and the saloon bar too)

As many of you know (and some of you might remember) RationalWiki last elected moderators in 2013, over two years ago. For those who forgot, moderators are indeed still a thing; President Cicero did not abolish them. : P Anyhow, I had prepared some grand spiel to go here, but I'd rather put it simply: it's past time to dissolve this !Parliament and call elections, helping to ensure that the moderators will continue to be viewed by RationalWiki as a genuinely representative (even if (hopefully) abnormally even-keeled) force, and furthermore allowing the mob at large to make (or reaffirm, as the case may be) choices of moderator best suited to the current needs of RationalWiki. Therefore, I propose an election be held the week of November 23, 2015, for seven moderators and two alternatives, with nominations taken the week of November 2. WalkerWalkerWalker 09:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need 7, but happy to just accept this to get a vote done. Tielec01 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The seven/two bit was just chosen as a stare decisis thing; I do not presently oppose a reduction in numbers; I just wanted to leap into one controversy at a time. WalkerWalkerWalker 09:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. One for the Saloon Bar - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

D'oh. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

...and tada. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Elections? Those sound dangerous! i'd still rather see a different way of getting mods besides biannual elections (namely, a revert to how Crats worked where we just sustain ourselves by having trusted users added in or removed as time goes by, as i'd like to believe we'd be able to not have things go all may11 again) but, if it's what other people wanna do, i'd support it. Would new mods get those fancy capes you asked about? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Debatable, but David probably won't get a complete Dr. Doom costume. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

On a more serious note, that sort of plan would of course avoid all the ill effects of elections, though I don't share your confidence in the lack of HCM-to-be. Then again, I am in many ways obsessed with repetitions of history so... *shrug* WalkerWalkerWalker 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind much how they're selected but have always thought seven is a ridiculously small number & really can't understand the people saying that's too many. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of regularly active users to choose from, I'd say 7 is way too much. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I agree. Wikis aren't exactly known as the most active of places. Even then they'd have to commit themselves to constantly patrolling RW so that no one goes ahead and, say, delete tons of articles. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)ZexcoilerKingbolt

That's what our large pool of Sysops are for, mods aren't for patrolling the wiki.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, going around baleting en masse is something a sysop (to temporarily debit) and the coop could deal with anyhow, hopefully without any moderators needing to try to drag us back onto the rails/reattach any flying editors to the handle. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So what is it you think we need? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm? Oh, I was just saying that the example given to argue for the need for "constant patrolling" by moderators didn't really require moderators under ideal circumstances. I still thing moderazis or similar are a good solution to the general propensity for HCM that just keeps being headless instead of resolving itself, otherwise potentially endless wheel wars over rights (deop him! Reop him and deop him! Deop them all! Reop all the people! (ok, this isn't quite an accurate summary of the event I was recalling... whoops)), etc.; I just don't hold with the claim by Zexcoiler that we'd need enough mods/OC enough mods to patrol all constantly. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that the Mods are largely unnecessary here - if they were ever useful, they aren't now. In the three years since we elected them I can't think of a single HCM they have averted (for god's sake we elected MC as a moderator) or even a single judicious use of their position and powers. However, I would be happy to stow my concerns just to get an election done because the current situation is the worst one to be in. Having said that, if there is a general mood to get rid of them I'd be firmly in favour. Tielec01 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've used my mod powers twice - once to salt a shitty article an otherwise good sysop kept creating, and once to undo a mod-locked forum, because who the eff mod-locks forums? Bicycle^wheel 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Seven is way too many, it only needs to be three or four. there was I time I wanted to leave RW last year, but I stayed because leaving meant brxbrx would become a mod. So, um, seven is too many. Let's have a new election now that pointless little twat has been permabanned so all the newer editors can have their say. Bicycle^wheel 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is, approximately, a 100 percent chance that BrxBrx is still on the wiki editing under a different user name. Tielec01 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I ran into him once on another website, he was horrified. and a 100% chance? That's far to certain, 99.99% seems better. Allows you for saving face.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Before we go all democratic, can we settle (1) how many mods and (2) how often elections? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay, bring on the three-week turdblossom on voting! It'll be just like the old days! Bicycle^wheel 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Voting on Voting is a great, time honored tradition!--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, did you say overcomplication? Okay, I can see about arranging that... WalkerWalkerWalker 04:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How many mods?

30

1. Is this how many active users FCP says that we have? Sounds like a good number of mods. Tielec01 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   Yep nope. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

7

1. 7 is a nice number. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
2. An odd number is necessary so that there is no tie. If there is, the last Mod can break that standstill. 7 is not necessarily a great number, but just having an odd number of people is fine. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
3. Seven is fine, in case you need them to make an important decision. Seven is a good representation of the users of this site. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
4. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 14:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

4

1. Seems fine. 4 is pushing it for our active 30+ edit/month usercount; 7 is too far, and an odd number to boot. Besides, 4 sounds like "death" in Chinese, and perfectly fits the job description of moderators to "kill heresy on sight" (and onsite). The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 07:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Four sounds good to me as well. We currently have seven, but where are they? If there aren't enough, we can have a by-election or bring the next one forward. Bicycle^wheel 08:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Actually, I'm liking what Bicycle Wheel said: four, but the moderazis can have the option to call the alternates up to be mods if they deem it needed. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
4. 7 is far to many for how few we have - if we are going to have a higher class of rights editors it needs to be proportionate, at 7 we may as well just mod all the sysops. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
5. This one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
6. Sounds okay to me. KOMF 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
7. I vote for four invisible pink unicorns. ShabiDOO 21:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

3

1. Triumvirate! Triumvirate! - π 14:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   What about a piumvirate? Four people, but someone only counts as π - 3 moderators. : P WalkerWalkerWalker 19:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

2. YOUNG GOATS! YOUNG GOATS! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
3. I'll go with three. --Castaigne (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No fixed number

1. Whoever wants the position, gets a few supporting votes & doesn't have a history of creating HCM situations. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. Also, I'm disqualified :P. CorruptUser (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Yep. MarmotHead (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
4. If we can have 2i mods, and then get those mods to have sex, we can have -1 mods. VOX^HUMANA 02:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat

Goat is the universal answer to any question. Larry/Jack! - (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How often elections?

Every 1 year

1. Same as RMF board. Could even roll the elections together. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk)
2. One election per year. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
3. One per year. every six months is overkill, and every two years would be...where we are now. Bicycle^wheel 08:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Yeah, let's keep this an occasional turdblossoming not a constant one... Although thus far there hasn't been much well turd. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
5. So long as we actually stick to this, I think annually is fine, though I'd argue for it to be 6 months offset from the RMF election to avoid confusion about who is running for what. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
6. What Goonie said - have Mod elections in the summer (minus the upcoming one, obviously) and board elections in the winter. 6 months for a imposed system is what led us to have the current apathy --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
7. Annually, but not a Pi Day. I'd suggest it be held on Guy Fawkes day, the day when the British prevented a religious nutjob somehow turned libertarian icon from transforming a horribly corrupt Parliament of assholes into a fascist theocracy. CorruptUser (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
8. KOMF 20:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Longer

1. 5 year reigns are appropriate, in my view. --Castaigne (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

CROWN MODS FOR LIFE

• QUEEN SOPHIE MUST BE OBEYED Bicycle^wheel 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As often as called for

If somebody is not content with the current crop of mods, then they can call for a new election. If enough people agree, then we get a new election

1. --Tanis (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, should we even still have moderators? Let's ask the big questions last...

Yes

1. It's been useful, on occasion. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 07:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
2. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Mods are only necessary on rare occasions, but I think the current system has finally managed to stop the drama getting out of hand. The massive HCMs that tore the place apart are a thing of the past. Bicycle^wheel 08:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   I don't think the system has stopped the HCM so much as editors with strong differing opinions having drifted away from the wiki. But, you know, that's just my opinion man. Tielec01 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

   But perhaps they drifted away because they knew there was a group of people who could put a stop to the crap. Bicycle^wheel 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

4. When it first came out, I hated the Moderator system because the big egos (Nutty Roux, Blue) that hated it got elected and used it as a proxy in their ego wars. However, it is clear to me, with some of the shit I've seen on this Wiki the last year or two, that having active Moderators is important to dealing with big issues where the community at large seems brain dead (think instances of libel where edit wars occur over an assumed right to libel somebody.) As such, this site does, in fact, need goid moderators. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Yeah, why not. All things in moderation. - π 14:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Yes, we've had rare but nonzero cause for adult supervision on occasion - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
7. Not knowing the inner workings of things here yet, I'd still like to wager that it's wise to keep this system in place. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
8. Sure. Whatever. --Castaigne (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• Definitely goat. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:41, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
• Yup. Tielec01 (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Whut? Sphincter (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Goat. Larry/Jack! - (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And actually, a point of order

Which all of these quality as policy change votes? All of them? And if so, what's considered the status quo for the how often question? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy? On RW? It's about as ad hoc as it gets. Here's fine.

The status quo is "fuck all". Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 07:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuck all? I knew RW was filled with evil ateist slets fucking everything! WalkerWalkerWalker 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

So

Is this gonna happen? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed the Moderator infobox to include the dates set above, so unless anybody wants to set a new date, I'd say it is. the only real question up for grabs is how many mods we plan to elect.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

4 is currently the most popular option... oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

by 1 vote.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

One's enough, isn't it? Let's make it four or we'll be fucking about for fucking ever, and the difference between three mods or four isn't much of an issue. Will anyone die if it's one number or another? No. Let's do this. Bicycle^wheel 17:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't know if people will die because of it, now any blood is on you! --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

History will absolve me. Bicycle^wheel 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

4 seems to be winning. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Schedule

★   2023   ★

Moderator Election Schedule

---

Nominations and campaigning began on:
4 November 2023
and ended on on:
25 November 2023

---

Voting is closed.
Starts: 17:00 UTC, 25 November 2023
Ends: 17:00 UTC, 2 December 2023

---

Results have been announced.

---

We will elect:
6 mods, 2 alternates

v - t - e

Those who want to vote seem to have voted, and with a slighty majority, 4 Mods elected once a year is the winning results. God help us. On a side note, we should make sure whoever will be using the intercom knows which settings to select as this has been an issue in the past.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure a mod (or higher?) needs to do the intercom, sysops don't have the permission. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, the role of mods on this wiki needs to be more clearly defined, and there needs to be code of conduct to which mods must adhere. No getting personally involved in disputes in which they are exercising modly powers. No hounding or insulting other users. Basically, if you're charged with keeping the peace, you ought to be held to higher standard than rank-and-file grunts. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You should know defining a mods powers will never work. They've been vague for 4 years for a reason.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If we're not going to define the role of mods, why have mods at all? Because, as it stands, the vagueness of the policy essentially grants mods a carte blanche to act at their sole discretion. And, as recent events have shown, there is a clear need to rein in mod powers to prevent their misuse. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know go ask all those people in 2011 who decided definite roles for mods were a bad thing?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You suggested that I propose policy changes instead of simply "bitching." You posted this message on my talk page multiple times, even after I requested that you cease. Your objection and deflection herein is telling, since your conduct is, perhaps, the strongest case for why limits on mod powers need to be established. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah, that's just him being a little bit of an ass. Don't need mod for that. ^_^ FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Things I've said: There has been historic resistance to giving mods more or defined powers beyond the vague mandate of keeping order, and then answered your question when you asked why we should have mods if they have no clear roles (to which only those who decided they shouldn't can answer, so i pointed you to ask them, few as they are now). At no point have i shown resistance to giving mods limits, and would love that because as is I have no clear idea just how far I should use my powers, in particular with the ongoing edit conflict between Mona and Avenger.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You unilaterally closed an AfD discussion only two hours after it opened yesterday. The current mod policy states that mods may decide "how long does a vote last," but logically that provision was intended to prevent AfD discussions from dragging on for months, not give mods the authority to arbitrarily shut down discussions after just two hours. There is no way for me to interpret these actions as anything but a bad-faith overstepping of your assigned powers. In addition, you removed the AfD notice template from the article, then mod-locked the article, preventing anyone but a mod such as yourself from restoring the template. I'm willing to believe this was simply an oversight on your part. Nonetheless, it needs to be rectified. You also showed very poor decorum yesterday. When I stated my wish to disengage from the back-and-forth were exchanging, you should have respected it. Instead, you repeatedly re-added the same message to my talk page, then threw a petty Parthian shot at me once you accepted that policy was on my side so far as removing messages from one's own talk page is concerned.[1] As a mod, your duty is to keep the peace, but instead your chose to escalate and perpetuate a heated situation. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And I do apologize for that, it was stupid of me. I still see no point in dregging the AFD out across a week in the face of almost unanimous and overwhelming support for keeping it though.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging where you erred. It's a definite step in the right direction. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Roles for mods

Avengerofthe BoN's ideas

Add your ideas. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

1. be entitled to one goat per month
2. block people
3. resolve edit wars (without taking one side or the other; failure to do so may result in loss of mod power)
4. Implement tagging, a method to directly thank users for their edits and other things
5. Be entitled to one jerboa per week Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

End edit conflicts involving sysops, hand out higher tier rights such as Ninja, Sysoprevoke and Tech, and enforce the will of the Mob whenever that happens to come up.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Could we set up a page for people to request rights? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Almighty Mob, hallowed be Thy Name. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Implementing tagging is a tech job, not a mod job. Bicycle^wheel 19:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No Jerboas! Ban the evil Jerboabite scum! Bicycle^wheel 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What's so bad about Jerboas? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh innocent one, beware thou the evil jerboa, who deceives with false cuteness. It is not goat. Bicycle^wheel 20:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Evil jerboas should be given as pets to Richard Gere. -Shtrominer (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, we can punish the Jerboas! Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 03:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody supported this tagging thing when it was proposed so I can't see it being a priority. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody opposed it. And I disagree as to no support, rather there were questions about its implementation. And as votes around here are one with one vote.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? I remember at least two people that thought the idea was utter crap... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I remember differently, but I ain't quite sure. Anyhoo, it'd be nice to have, but this very wiki will survive not having it Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Shtrominer's proposals

1. Must not become personally involved in disputes in which they are acting/have acted in a modly capacity.
2. Must remain civil in their interaction with other users. If mods are to be charged with keeping the peace, then their conduct must be held to a higher standard.
3. Must recuse themselves from voting in AfD nominations for articles which they created or contributed to significantly. They can still comment.
4. There needs to be a set length for AfD discussions. This cannot be left up to modly discretion. That's ripe for misuse. Mods archive the discussion on the set date and enforce the outcome of the vote (whether it be deleting the article or keeping it).
5. There also needs to be a more formalized dispute resolution process. Discussion could be centralized in the Chicken Coop. Mods would be tasked with applying whatever remedies or sanctions are agreed upon by the community.
6. Mods may only act at their sole discretion if it's to contain vandalism, trolling, or edit-warring. Thus, if immediate action is required to prevent harm to this wiki or its users.

-Shtrominer (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

On 1: that's the squo

On 2: ehhh maybe. this could help resolve stuff

On 3: Nope. Mods are no less voters than other users.

On 4: Propose that on the AFD page, that's not a mod issue.

On 5: Propose that elsewhere, that's not a mod issue.

On 6: If mods need a vote to act, there's no point in having mods. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Then I propose that moderators be abolished entirely. Everything they do in terms of containing vandalism and trolling can be done by sysops. Everything else they do would be better carried out through the kind of formalized processes we currently lack. There should be a formal dispute resolution process for settling disagreements. Settling disputes should be a matter of community consensus, not individual discretion. There should also be a formalized process for closing AfD nominations and enforcing the results. Anyone could close an AfD with such rules in place. Mods seem redundant at best. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Everything else they do would be better carried out through the kind of formalized processes we currently lack."

Nah. Voting takes a long time and requires people to care. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you missed the chance to make the case for no mods, and will have work inside the system where they exist for now.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there will be a new election is the most progress that will be enjoyed for this century. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(reply to Paravent) Nonsense. Wiki policies aren't written in stone. They can (and should) be changed or repealed if they aren't working. -Shtrominer (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The mob decided they wanted to keep mods, when given the opportunity to vote no, nobody did so. So yes, you actually will have to accept for atleast a year we will continue to have mods.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Except I'm proposing alternative methods for dealing with the things currently handled by mods. And, if implemented, these alternative methods would make mods unnecessary. All reasonable proposals should be on the table here. Saying something is off the table "just because" smacks of obstructionism. -Shtrominer (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Something seems to be escaping your attention (again): The issue of whether to keep moderators a thing was already recently discussed and the consensus was to keep moderators a thing. Mob consensus isn't "just because". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:51, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

The fact that people previously voted on a specific policy should not preclude them from being allowed to consider implementing another policy that would supercede it. Essentially what you're saying is that we should just learn to live with a broken policy instead of trying to find a better way of doing things. "You guys made your bed, now you have to lie in it" really isn't an ideal philosophy for running wikis. -Shtrominer (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

They had the option to vote no and chose not to. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Except voting whether to get rid of mods and voting on whether to implement formalized processes to replace the job done by mods are not the same thing, even though they might potentially have the same outcome. -Shtrominer (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to propose these formalized processes you speak of, though the mod election might not be the best place for it. After you manage to get said processes accepted by the masses (something that could prove a tad difficult, but let's be optimistic for now) we can look at if there is still a need for moderators. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

On the bright side, if your suggested reforms are somehow put in place or not, there'll be less of the buggers. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Bicyclewheel's proposal

1. Keep things more or less as they are. Most of the above can be done by sensible sysops, who outnumber the idiots many times over. Mods intervene only when sysops can't agree. Bicycle^wheel 19:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, keep things more or less the way they are. Invite wikilawyering time-wasters to join the Golgafrinchans, wherever they may have gone to. SmartFeller (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

   Islington, wasn't it? Bicycle^wheel 20:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This was the whole point of moderation: you elect sensible people so you don't have to rules-lawyer them. If someone is an ass, vote them out. No rules and no guidelines is my vote, since mods are supposed to boot-strap past all nonsense.--^talk 13:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

142.124.55.236's thoughts

If everybody stopped being assholes, we'd instantly achieve world peace. Think about that for a second. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

But if only some people stop being assholes, somebody still has got to stop the assholery of the others. Think about that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Then people will get dragged into an endless cycle of assholery and world peace will forever be beyond our grasp. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Kosterortiizbrock's suggestions

Perhaps moderators should undergo a process of defenestration before instatement. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a window of opportunity. Bicycle^wheel 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody who is not yet in power be properly defenestrated though?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like fun. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's all fun and games until someone falls out the window. Bicycle^wheel 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yea...eerrr "falls". Maybe just a little "helpful push" here and there. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

But if we defenestrate the wrong people, the mess will be going on for thirty years... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

shabidoo's suggestion

I think that the mods responsibilities should be to identify microagressions by all users and to punish or ban anyone who makes users uncomfortable or re-live past traumas. They should also revert edits to articles that deal with ideas that challenge some readers own beliefs to the point of having an overwealmingly negative emotional experience. Rationalwiki should be a safe cyberspace and mods should develop a sensitivity training course for all active users. ShabiDOO 22:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yea, um no. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Shabidoo's microaggressive suggestion made me relive a past trauma. Bicycle^wheel 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Bicycle, your reliving of a trauma traumatized me. After rereading your comment, I had to relive that trauma. Can you please make a safe space where no words are used? Or maybe just really really small words, so the microagression is more of a nanoagression? Thanks. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I highly regret, bicycle, that my word have been a force of verbal terror towards you as well as cascading on to another user (who as a cat has just as many emotional considerations as humans lest you experience the terms I've used as speciesism or homophobia or worst of all anti-semitism). I should have been more mindful of the terms I used and I hope we can learn from my callous and cold-blooded attack on your disadvantaged intersectional-human-hood. We should delete this entire page so that no one else feels the shame and humiliation of exclusivity or marginalization. ShabiDOO 12:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your misspelling of Antisemitism traumatized me. "Semitism" is not an ideology, and not a word, hence the hyphen is BS Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The hyphen was placed to respect the intersectionality of opressed paradigmatic tendencies. But I can understand how that offended you. My own micro-agressions have led me to traumatise myself. ShabiDOO 16:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In this moment, I am triggered. Not because of some phony's microaggressions, but because of my own enlightened traumas. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THE TRASHY STROLLING IS AN EYESORE!} 02:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

F. A's suggestion

I believe the mods should be given powers equal to that of Kim Jong-Un, and the power to invade Iraq.-The return of F.A (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Orwellite musings

None. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

what. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't need your anarchist kind round heyah. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato's suggestion

Stop suggesting so many ideas for mod roles and then not voting on 'em. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

there is only one real suggestion though--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Larry/Jack's suggestion

The answer is always goat. Larry/Jack! - (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)