RationalWiki:2016 board of trustees election/Campaigning

Hop on board the Trump Train Goat-Cart!

With any luck, there will be 5 elected boardmembers.

Campaigning

Bongolian

"Not insane!"

FuzzyCatPotato

Ye Grand Olde Platform: End RW Docs (a failed RW project), end EvoWiki & convert the sites [1][2][3][4] to redirects to RW (after it's ported), and maybe do some RW press releases on atheist/evolutionist blogs (if the RatWiks so desire).

And since RBP was so kind to make this, I'll dump this (now irrelevant) poster here: FuzzyCatPotato of the White-male Guillotines (talk/stalk) 04:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Human

A goat in every pot, and a pot for every goat! ħuman 02:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

ikanreed

I'm not sure if I'm really up to the responsibility, but the wiki does need people who look after the legal, bureaucratic, and financial concerns of site. I'd try my best to do that.

Reverend Black Percy

The Rev's Official Home-cooked Platitude-form Platform: Basically, an echo of FCP's platform above - though I will state right now that the over-arching theme of my candidacy, personally, is that I will be taking a relative "backseat position" on the board, in order to learn from the more cunning and experienced board members. If you want a hothead who is here to upset things and push his personal agenda without getting anything done, don't vote for me (but do vote for Trump if you prize those qualities!).

In other words, part of my intention on the board will be, for what it's worth, actually paying attention to the foundation, rather than having the foundation pay attention to me. I am also an active editor who genuinely always does my best to help maintain as nice an atmosphere in the community as possible, and I will carry both those traits into my participation on the board, was I to be elected (with the minor caveat in regards to my productivity that I do actually have ADHD - which is only a problem when things are delegated to me).

That, and;

• Doing all I can to keep ads off the site and keeping the Foundation as independent as possible
• Maybe figuring out nice ways to spread the word about RationalWiki?
• Maybe looking at ways to get the site some extra funding?
• Maybe looking at ways of getting the attention of prospective good editors?
• Lending an ear (if nothing else) to suggestions (from non-concern trolls) on how we might do certain things better?

Also, I'm interested in - and I say this in the least belligirent and least polarized way imaginable - gently reinforcing RW's principal focus on woo, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, genereral crankery and assorted craziness (ranging from UFO's to altmed to pseudohistory and beyond) in contrast to a number of things, e.g. to general encyclopedic content, which we're not really supposed to be covering anyways.

That, combined with - in a far less gentle tone - stating that I am passionate about upholding the current mission statement. Thank you, and Goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Candidate fact/endorsement sheet

1. Bongolian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on July 26 2014. Normal sysop.

   Endorsements

   1. Allegedly not insane! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   2. A dedicated and collegial editor, without the contributions of whom we would be worse off. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   3. My interactions with this user aren't memorable. That has to be a good sign. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
   4. Not awful.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
   5. Would be content with them as Dictator board member CorruptUser (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
   6. For taking an interest in obscure matters and always being polite about it. (I'm Uppivindinn, whatever the signature shows.) King Frode II (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
   7. I endorse Bongolian. I mean, I don't know him/her, but I think anything with "rational" in the descriptor probably should have at least one self-proclaimed "scientist" serving its board. Also, us scientists have to stick together, if only to promote violent anti-violent reforms targeting the stupidity of the world. Epsilon3 (talk)
   8. Hard worker, possibly sane. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   Anti-endorsements

   Goat

2. David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on 24 May 2008. Has variously been normal sysop, bureaucrat, and moderator. Is current member of the board. Is currently elected moderator.

   Endorsements

   1. Level-headed and sane, except when he's bitching about my proposals obviously. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
   2. If I've atleast managed to make it to Capo since joining just 13 months back, then this guy's the Don, capiche? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
   3. Level-headed and sane, especially when bitching 'bout taters proposals. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

      This proves that my proposals help other people think, right? Right? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

   4. Hasn't abused his powers so far, which is probably the best endorsement anyone could have. CorruptUser (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
   5. Can be expected to look after this site. Nerd (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   6. I support DG's candidacy. Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   7. Behind-the-scenes tech workhorse, has done a pretty good job at moderating so far.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   8. What the people before me said.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
   9. Amazing editor with lots of experience. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 01:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
   10. I endorse David Gerard, because he appears to write prolifically and with some wit. I think anything Wiki should have at least one writer-type-guy serving its board. Also, as a writer, I know it's difficult to write with wit. Further, some of the sensitive topics on RW require humor (because some of it's THAT stupid and because humor makes the lumps hurt less). Epsilon3 (talk)

   Anti-endorsements

   Goat

3. FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on 1 August 2013. Has variously been normal sysop, moderator, ninja and tech. Is currently elected moderator.

   Endorsements

   1. I endorse this event or product. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   2. I support FCP's candidacy based on our constructive interactions. Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   3. This user is always trying to improve things here. I like the platform that the feline fellow is standing on. Spud (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   4. Active contributor, also doing tech stuff.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   5. Always liked coming up with rules a lot, but otherwise good wiki-content-changing-by-means-of-altering-text-dude. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
   6. Actually has a platform.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

      Hey, I do too now! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

      Ok, let me change my endorsement of you.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   7. Very useful for the behind the scenes work already. CorruptUser (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
   8. For being a thoughtful and fair moderator. (I'm Uppivindinn, whatever the signature shows.) King Gorm (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
   9. Same as the people here. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 01:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
   10. Not that anybody cares, since I only discovered RW recently (thank God, ha ha ha), but with some reservations. I like FuzzyCat's apparent atheistic-lean and sense of humor, while I do not much appreciate the leftist hack to his/her personality. Too many believe scientist-types are also invariably socialist/leftist. I, for one, am adamantly NOT either of these things. I urge the other candidates to keep a careful and paranoid eye on this character, lest this wonderful resource begin to devolve into a Hillary-esque leftist cabal intent on sapping our precious bodily fluids. Epsilon3 (talk)

       FuzzyCat has show himself to be reasonable regardless of the political issues in any given case. He is (sorry, the word for cat in my language is male, so Fuzzy is a he, as far as I'm concerned until proven otherwise :-) invariably patient, polite and gives sound advice. Cheers King Ivar (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   11. Friendly and knows how to teach a paranoid git the important lesson of skepticism and the various techniques.--WMS (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
   12. Lucid and energetic. Let the Potato's voice be heard in the board room. Leuders (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
   13. Nerd271 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

   Anti-endorsements

   Goat

4. Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on 22 May 2007. Has variously been normal sysop, ninja, bureaucrat, and moderator. Is currently elected moderator.

   Endorsements

   1. Level-headed and sane. Active enough for the notoriously inactive board. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
   2. A whole life fits into that userpage of hers. Basically, she's as original to this place as Gandalf is to Middle Earth, afaik. And here I am, a Hobbit waving a glowing toothpick. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
   3. Has been fairly sane. CorruptUser (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
   4. Excellent guy: cynical to a degree. The stuff RW used to be made of.^{— Unsigned, by: Pippa / talk / contribs}
   5. I support Human's candidacy. Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   6. See above.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
   7. I endorse human. Because competency. Bazer63 (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
   8. I also endorse Human, because I think the world needs more females. Also, I hope she makes free pairs of InHuman speakers ($640K+ per pair) a special gift to all her endorsers. Like me. Epsilon3 (talk)
   9. From what I saw, a very very active member.--WMS (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

   Anti-endorsements

   Goat

5. ikanreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on June 6 2014. Has variously been normal sysop and tech.

   Endorsements

   1. Probably capable.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 23:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
   2. A big, beautiful, healthy baby boy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
   3. When I first came here (as a BoN), fought with me, but then helped me out. Been quite a decent contributer here. CorruptUser (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
   4. Whenever motivated, offers largely valid advice. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   Anti-endorsements

   1. I do not endorse ikanreed, because I cannot lazily find much information about him/her on his/her profile except the glaring statement "I hate bigots". 1) if ironic, it rubs me the wrong way because, 2) it corresponds with the new definition of "tolerance" (read that, young liberal definition of tolerance), which appears to now mean "I tolerate you, so long as you think, feel, act, speak, dress and VOTE the same way I do". In my opinion, the term tolerance cannot be qualified. You either are or are not tolerant. I can tolerate bigots, in that I don't want to shoot them, even though I don't agree with them. In fact, this world appears to desperately need MORE of that kind of tolerance and LESS hatred of ALL KINDS. I hope the caps seem tolerant, but only barely so. Epsilon3 (talk)

   Goat

6. Owlman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on 11 May 2015. Has variously been normal sysop and tech.

   Endorsements

   1. I support Owlman's candidacy. Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   2. Do I endorse this candidate? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   3. Yes. PBfreespace (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
   4. Actually edits.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
   5. Even when I disagree with him, he's willing to reasonably discuss it out. On the internet? It's a sign of the end times! CorruptUser (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
   6. As I recall he's solid and trustworthy. (I'm Uppivindinn, whatever the signature shows.) King Fridlev (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
   7. I endorse Owlman if only for his (I assume an Owlman is a masculine sort of thing) apparent humility. Having served on boards in the past, I know humility can be a valuable thing, if only to counteract Texans (read that egotists) like myself. Epsilon3 (talk)
   8. Responsible enough to be a tech. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   Anti-endorsements

   Goat

7. Reverend Black Percy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on May 19 2015. Has variously been normal sysop, resident hunk and ninja.

   Endorsements

   1. Very active on this site. Generally polite unless provoked. Nerd (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   2. Active, sane, all around-contributor. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   3. I support RBP's candidacy based on our constructive interactions. Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   4. One of my favourite Europeans. Spud (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

      One of your favourite Europeans? Aww, shucks - who's chopping the onions... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

   5. Active with great contributions.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
   6. Capable of self restraint ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
   7. Always been friendly, at least to me. -ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 23:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

      Didn't say this before, but he actually has a platform!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

   8. Adds a good amount of friendly personality to the site. At least to me. CorruptUser (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
   9. One of my favorite Swedes. Leuders (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

      One of your favourite Swedes? Aww, geez - who's chopping the onions again... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

   10. Friendly, articulate, and calm, unless you make him angry (which is not often). Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 01:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
   11. A good reverend. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
   12. I endorse Reverend Black Percy because 1) he claims to be Swedish (I think) and 2) he claims to be education-oriented (and also some kind of reverend-type-situation). I do, however, have one uneasy cautionary note about this candidate: he claims to be seeking a higher degree in (queue dramatic "icky" sound here) philosophy. Like all PhDs, the word philosophy is in the degree nomenclature (the D, I have learned from fellow scientists, stands-for "Dumbass"), I do not liken that to an actual doctorate IN philosophy. In my opinion, ACTUAL philosophers are dangerous, because they are akin to the Olympic wrestlers of intellectualism - nobody can pin them down! In the words of R. Lee Ermey's character in "Full Metal Jacket", I'll be watching you! Epsilon3 (talk)

       He's studying theoretical philosophy, whatever that may be, and despite personal promises to explain what that is, he's not yet done so. I have every reason to believe that nationality and gender are correct. King Loter (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

       Actually, this particular summer I'm taking a class in cosmology (first time I'm mentioning that is now, so no harm done). The course I took previously in theoretical philosophy looks like this, if that's any help (I hope it is). Nationality and gender is - as far as I'm aware - correct. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

       See what I mean? Logic and metaphysics. METAPHYISICS, for crying out loud! Watching. You. I will. Be.--Epsilon3 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC) (Say, I'm getting the hang of this wiki-thing.)

       Philosophy and some basic training in science are a good combination. Nerd (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

       I must admit: Cool! Cheers King Skate (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

   13. Friendly and knows how to help out a person, when they start losing the sense of rationality, with logic and good reasoning.--WMS (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
   14. Friendly. Hard worker. Humorous. If every RWian was like him, RW would be three times as popular. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   Anti-endorsements

   Goat

Dropped out/found to be ineligible candidates

CorruptUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on 14 February 2015. Has variously been normal sysop and tech.

1. Endorsements

   1. Nice, good, smart, sane person. PB (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
   2. A friend of Dolph Lundgren is a friend of mine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
   3. First person to put something in the "Goat" section.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

   Anti-endorsements

   Goat

   Not sure whether I dread winning or losing more. CorruptUser (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

   1. Sorry, but due to recent personal issues I won't be available for the position. Thanks for the support though. CorruptUser (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ipatrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log): First contributed on 16 February 2009. Normal sysop.

1. Endorsements

   Anti-endorsements

   1. Again, I assume a hyper-inflated self-evaluation of my opinion here, but most RW-ers probably do not, since I am a newbie. I am not, however, new to the world and I find it strange a candidate for this board should be anonymous in his/her profile. Granted, my own profile is equally blank, now that I think of it, but then again I'm not running for office. Or walking. Or limping, hopping, skipping. Or crawling like a gastropod leaving a slimy trail behind me. ANYway, I do not endorse Ipatrol. Epsilon3 (talk)

   Goat

   1. Ipatrol is the only candidate I have qualms about (no offense to you, Ipatrol!). Ipatrol has contributed just 9 edits in the past 4 years. While Ipatrol could certainly be a dedicated, watchful lurker, this is not evidenced anywhere. If they are this inactive, Ipatrol may not understand current RW norms, problems, etc. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
   2. What FCP Said. I just can't reconcile giving a current board position on the foundation (which needs active users, both so we know their personality, and because the idea is that the foundation actually get some things done) to a user who - regardless of the age of his account - is otherwise completely unknown to me. I mean, for all I know, the 4 year old password to Ipatrol's account has just been cracked by some random person who wants to stir up trouble with it (though I'm positive this could be shown not to be the case). Who knows. Now, I'm not saying there's any grounds whatsoever for thinking that's the case; I'm merely trying to highlight how little I feel that I have to go on in regards to this user in the context of this specific election. Again, no offense to Ipatrol. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
   3. What they said. Plus, Ipatrol stated that he nominated himself because not many people had accepted the nomination - yet it seems that there are more nominees than seats. Also, to play into the soon-to-be law student's part of me: he has less than 250 edits and is therefore technically ineligible. What I find more interesting, however, is that he made a grand total of four edits (of which two were to election pages) and left again - which, to be honest, is not exactly what I would expect from a dedicated RationalWikian (which a board member should be, IMO).--JorisEnter (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

      Is he in fact technically ineligible? Because that would literally mean he's ineligible; there's no non-technichal side to that rule (as much as I hate to see any candidate go, we can't skimp on the basics here people). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

      The guidelines state that to qualify for a board position one has to, among other things, have at least 250 edits. Ipatrol doesn't. So yes, he is indeed ineligible.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Question the candidates

And if you're lucky, get an answer.

Just add a Header 3 (===) below with your query.

Can noncandidates respond, too? *shrug* It's an ad hoc section anyway -- let the questioners decide. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a question, but I'd just like to mention that I'm very pleased with how most of the board candidates are relative newcomers who joined in the last couple years. It gives me hope for the future of the site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Death to the Old Guard! Rah rah rah! (/s I do agree, though. Saddening to see not that many old-timers still interested in running, though. :/)Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised Trent didn't respond. He hasn't been active for months. Maybe he's been assassinated by the combined forces of Andrew Schlafly, Donald Trump, Alex Jones, and David Icke. TeslaK20 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dun dun dunnnnn!-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hardball with Stabby

Okay, first question for the candidates:

Let's say, hypothetically, someone posts something obviously libelous, or at least maliciously untrue. Then say the community itself proves unable to adequately address this, so the Board feels the need to step in and mandate the removal of the offending material as well as block the editor responsible for it, in an act of official ass-covering and self-preservation. This sets off the usual wheel wars with other editors who immediately unblock said libeler and undelete the edits in question.

I say hypothetically, but of course, this is something that actually happened.

Setting aside the specific case that inspired this question (since it's probably still controversial in its own right) my questions are:

(1) How would you communicate the Board's actions addressing such an incident to the RationalWiki community, especially in light of the Board's existing reputation as distant and uncommunicative, and especially to the the contingent whom are naturally skeptical of authority and of what they perceive as censorship?

(2) How would you handle the reverts of Board actions by regular sysops? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not looking for a specific answer, just an indication that as a Board member you will actually have communicating and interacting with the community at all in the forefront of your mind, since last time something happened we, uh, kind of didn't, and it wasn't handled quite as well as it could've been—if you check my links you'll see that 25 days passed between the Board taking action and a board member announcing what was going on outside of barely-seen block comments. Previous iterations of the board have been loathe to interact with the community due to perceiving it as a herd of cats who are also angry bees, and I say that as one of those board members. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess I would send an email to the board and try and come up with a plan of action within 3 to 5 days; this plan would be sent to the mods for enforcement. We would then proceed to either rewrite the page or delete it and block the editor. If any user decided to try and undo the deletions and/or unblock the user they would be warned that if they continued they would lose their sysop privileges.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 06:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This might not actually be a reply to your question(s) at all, in which case I am sorry, but for what it's worth, I just wish to state that - as far as I understand things - the handling of specific disputes and enforcement of specific rules and decrees is primarily the job of the moderators, not of the board members. When those two overlap in the same person, it's one thing. But as a prospect board member who is not elected moderator, were I elected, I would do what I could to make sure we don't start to, let's say, "conflate the executive and judicial branches" (considering the legislative branch to be the sum of RW registered voters, in this metaphor). I hope this admittedly tangential answer was of any use whatsoever. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Good old brxbrx. I'm glad that Rome Viharo hasn't spiralled into a Kevin Martin remix.

1: After the Glorious Board reaches its divinely-ordained verdict: [1] Create a Saloon bar thread including the text of / summary of the board decision. This is doubly functional: a notification and a discussion area if necessary. [2] Write a "site-wide urgent" intercom noting that the board had made a decision and linking to [1]. 3 See RationalWiki:All_things_in_moderation#Things_we_moderated for reference. One or two pages should exist to document board actions (maybe a subpage of RMF?) and mod group actions. Add any new board/mod actions at the top.

2: Escalating bans, same as fighting mod decisions. A month probation, then a month ban, then permaban. (If it's libel, no mercy is justified.) As a result, mods would have to be told all the details.

Sidenote: I wager that David Gerard and Human won't respond, but I trust both to handle such a situation entirely. FuzzyCatPotato of the Rhyming Pastry chefs (talk/stalk) 21:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

From memory they were both on the board that bumbled their way through that mess so your trust might be misplaced. Furthermore, DG was removed from his wikipedia positions for a combination of running the UK branch into the ground and saying things that caused wikipedia administrators to remark (and I paraphrase, but only slightly) that he was an embarrassment to the project and they needed to send a message that he didn't speak for Wikipedia; so I wouldn't expect too much of him.

As an old editor passing by I echo Stabby's sentiment, it's exciting to see editors like FCP, RBP etc... who are much nicer and more competent people than the so called 'old guard' ever where, taking up the mantle of leadership. Perhaps the board could actually do something for the first time in 4+ years. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Truth be told, I've fallen on what I now perceive to be the wrong side of this issue in the past. If the claim isn't substantiated really well by an outside reliable source and the user won't drop it, I'd be ready to yearlong ban, permanent topic ban, and purge pretty fast. I have no idea what I'd do if it was well substantiated and we were faced with a legal threat. I'd need to talk my position over. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the Board would instruct the Moderators to handle it site-side, assuming they either hadn't, or weren't aware of it. If the Mods failed to resolve the content issue (how could they screw that up?), the Board would have to do so. I am guessing revision delete would be required. As far as blocking, banning, etc., that all depends on the position of any offending editor(s). Again, the Mods have the tools and the authority to handle that aspect, and would be expected to do so to the community's satisfaction.

This is all assuming a bona fide case. ħuman 02:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A New Guy, Absurdly Hopeful and Boyishly Interested

To all candidates, especially Reverend Black Percy, what is your opinion of SPAM? (Not the email-kind, which is a sad misuse of that wonderful meat-type-thing, but the Monty Python kind.) AND, can you relate, without referring to any resource but your brain-pan, what the SP represents (AM represents hAM???)? Finally, what does it say about human evolution - specifically, in your opinion, have Homo sapiens stopped evolving, or has evolution of the species taken on a new and decidedly unnatural nature (e.g., the so-called obesity epidemic in the US as it relates to the length of the average Caucasian male phallus and his ability to vigorously employ it against an equally obese partner with too-difficult to locate pudenda) - in your (obviously humble) opinion(s), is SPAM part of the solution OR part of the problem?^{— Unsigned, by: Epsilon3 / talk / contribs}

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lol! :)-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 23:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My Question

What is one goal you most want to achieve if you are elected?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a tough (but fair) question. The problem with replying to a "most-question" is that it inherently looks like I'm downranking all other thinkable goals, which I have to stress that I'm not by answering your question. Still... I'd have to attempt a cheat reply by answering "The one goal I'd most want to achieve if I'm elected is the umbrella goal of getting progress on the four respective sub-goals I list in my campaign platform above". I guess if that answer isn't passable, I'll have to give my reply some more thought... Otherwise, I fear I'd just come up with the classic politician's reply, "I want things to be great!", a statement which isn't hard to disagree with (per se), but which says absolutely nothing about how we're to do anything specific whatsoever. And that'd be no reply at all, if you ask me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Most important goal: publicizing RW. Gathering more editors and preserving a RW community far outweighs the other more trivial duties of the board. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, in other words, I expect you support my platform, then? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. ;P Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget it's your turn to make me an election poster next time! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's pick sane people to publicize the site to. The track record of the last couple of years seems a bit awry. Great goal, though. My goal for the coming Board would be to have a meeting. We used to do that. ħuman 02:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Great goal though", in reference to my goal(s)? Asking cause I was unsure about the reference. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! We certainly need more readers and more editors. But keep in mind that more publicity brings more vandals and trolls. Nerd271 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, Human.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the point?

Serious question, what is the point of any of this? Will any of it make a blind bit of difference from the way the foundation's been run previously? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. A more transparent foundation might get more donations (though that's not a given). A more publicity-seeking foundation might get more editors and viewers to RW (not a given). Ending RWDocs and EW might save money from URL registration. *shrug* None of this will fundamentally change RW, but it might bend its ascent further upwards. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, nominally, I suppose the most important point is that arbitrarily selecting someone could result in a corrupt board member who could do all sorts of callous things: ignore legal problems, ignore technical problems, fail to manage funds adequately. Fundamentally, it's probably a more defensive election than progressive. As a pretty open-ended wiki, the mission, content, and rules are mostly managed by regular users. In that context I'd say the board should mostly be confined to insuring the wiki's continuity, not really changing much. It matters because it's a sine qui non. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 03:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mobile friendly website version

RW is still lacking it (despite running on MediaWiki) and I believe it won't increase the visitorship if kids nowadays can't access the site comfortably with their pet devices. Thoughts? ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 11:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I both edit and read from my Android phone all the time. I haven't run into any real problems thus far. That being said, a lot of stuff around RW could use an upgrade, so it's not that I'm against progress here. I just wouldn't call the page "mobile (un)friendly". All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is imperative that we add a mobile version, as the current workaround is inconvenient. Everyone has a mobile version now, even Conservapedia. --TeslaK20 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not against a mobile version at all. And as someone who edits from his phone a lot, maybe a mobile version would have conveniences that I've yet to dream of (and I do mean that; I'm not being sarcastic or anything of the likes). Still, it's also true (atleast for me personally) that I've had absolutely no problem browsing or editing the page from my Android phone as it stands. Just saying. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I edit from my iPad all the time and I'm just fine. I have to agree with RBP.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with NTNT and Tesla. The site is ok on a phone, but I find I accidentally tap the wrong things all the time. And zooming in to avoid that is the sort of minor hassle that you'd think would be negligible, but for the casual reader it could be the reason they say "fuck it this is annoying" and leave. We as editors may not care too much but if we're trying to expand readership I think the little things count. B) talk 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A few questions

I have one for each candidate 84.76.95.223 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

To percy

How would you get the word out? You would give a couple concrete ways you'd do this? Please be very specific.^{— Unsigned, by: 84.76.95.223 / talk / contribs}

Cat

Would you support a skin change (even a minor one) that might keep the essence of wikipedia like format...only more attractive and giving rationalwiki more of it's own identity?^{— Unsigned, by: 84.76.95.223 / talk / contribs}

I like that. A minor change would probably significantly cut down on the "but this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia is NPOV" comments. I've no idea what the change could be, though. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably a change to the default font. Although if the change is to a serif font I shall leave and never come back. Again. Bicycle^wheel 20:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

More importantly: this is irrelevant to the board election, since the site users (not the board members) determine what RW looks like. (EG, RW users overwhelmingly supported the current logo over Aneris' proposed alternative.) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Owlman

If you were able to completely wipeout one website online...totaly annihalaing it out of existence...what would it be?^{— Unsigned, by: 84.76.95.223 / talk / contribs}

I don't think I would want to wipeout any site. Sites like whale.to, for example, are just too funny to want to destroy and sites like the chans will continue to replicate themselves.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ikanreed

If a user is doxxed by say...the men's rights movement...what would you do?^{— Unsigned, by: 84.76.95.223 / talk / contribs}

Same thing as always, assuming it happened here. Revert the change, purge the revisions, ban the user. More of a moderator problem than a board problem though. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Human

What's your favourite episode of Star Trek (any series is okay) and how do you think that makes you a good candidate?^{— Unsigned, by: 84.76.95.223 / talk / contribs}

I'll have to get back to you soon on that, while I crank the old memory banks over a few turns. Even though I haven't answered the question yet, the qualification this displays is to research and think before speaking or acting. Episode to follow soon! ħuman 02:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bongolian

If a company offered us tons of cash to allow just a little bit of click bait (tastefully done) would you support it?^{— Unsigned, by: 84.76.95.223 / talk / contribs}

That's a good question. I think it would depend on the company and whether RW has veto power over what appears. I would not accept a generic advertiser for example, as it would quite possibly allow woo-type advertising. I would have no problem with a clearly science-based advertiser, e.g. Elsevier or some other aggregator of peer-reviewed journals, but this is an unlikely advertiser. Bongolian (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

We had adverts a few years ago and they were batshit. The advertising computer picked up that we covered woo in some way and so we got loads of links to new age stuff. Bicycle^wheel 20:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, I'm sorry! (Hahahaha!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The primary reason we stopped running ads is because RationalWiki's Google AdSense account got terminated. Google's keyword-based ad system meant it displayed ads for the very things our articles criticized, and being "detrimental to advertisers" is a no-no with Google. They were also greatly mocked when we did run them. That being said, other ad companies exist, and after this board election it won't be my decision to make anymore. I trust all of the current candidates to make a good choice. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could find ads like the "Paid Advertisements" on infidels.org (except less goddamn ugly). Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Guh. I can say right now that, were I elected, I'd rather work my ass of locating funding for the operation of the site than have us accept ads. Ads are the aids of the internet. Besides, we should keep our freedom to be the wiki we want to be instead of subjecting ourselves to the concerns of ad providers. Let's not, guys. Let's not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts are that, if we can provide advertising space for secular causes (eg, secular congresspersons) and get ourselves money, then it might be a win-win? That said, it'd drain some proportion of RW readers. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should focus less on running the world and more on running the site. And look at the Israel/Palestine quagmires, and the huge split between Hillary and Bernie-fans... there's no way this site could sell ad space to any political candidate without it driving people away. It just doesn't seem worth it. Everyone hates ads. We'd get cash, that's why we'd take on ads, not because we love our users. Which is why I'm strongly saying that we should get the cash in other ways. And I mean to work hard at that if I have to. There's a hundred more reasons than these not to take on ads, but I'm on my phone. I imagine us starting to look like ED the moment ads come in. Bad vibe, man. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll say this, no one likes ads.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that we'd have to be careful who we allowed to advertise here, otherwise the accusations that we're paid shills for somebody or other will be much harder to dispute. Our editorial independence wouldn't look independent. Bicycle^wheel 19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, taking money for political ads — even from those who seem to agree with us — is s quagmire, best to avoid. If Reverend Black Percy seriously thinks he can get funding from new sources, then I honestly think he's a better candidate than I am. Bongolian (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

David

There's a lot of cruft on the pages of the wiki...some of it makes the other very good spankingly well written articles...seem less gooder. Would you support a mass recycling campaign for cruft articles?^{— Unsigned, by: 84.76.95.223 / talk / contribs}