RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 July 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>

, (new)(back)

Discussion of nominees

For discussion of the election process, see RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections.

• Hamster - while I am honored to be nominated , with my fathers death recently other priorities have come forward, so I dont expect to have much time for the internet in the coming months. Thanks though Hamster (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, though you are as deserving a candidate as any, for sure. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh Hamster, that's sad. I can only hope it was as painless as possible for him, and that you and your family are well supported by family, friends, and even kind strangers. :-)--En attendant Godot 22:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I personally wouldn't support RobSmith or DMorris2 but I nominated them for about the same reason Human nominated Nx. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Campaigning

Here nominees may make their case as to why they should be elected.

Ace McWicked

We all know I should be elected. Ace ^{of Spades} 06:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If Ace is elected I swear to god I'll LANCB. Ace ^{of Spades} 06:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you Ace, I'll do as I please. Ace ^{of Spades} 07:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys! Calm down! Clearly Ace is in the right. Ace, stop being an asshole to Ace.--^talk 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

AD is right, Ace should be punished. Sorry about Ace, Ace. Ace ^{of Spades} 08:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the new moderation works surprisingly well. Good job, AD! Röstigraben (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Woah, let this dude moderate mah sawlad. I don't think so!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

AD

I'm no one's enemy, and I never cause a ruckus. You never see me calling anyone names, and I never get into revert wars. I read Recent Changes every day at a minimum just because I like the feeling of community here. I will never be unreachable, since I am pretty open about who I am and I link to my personal blog. I'm cool either way, though. Lot of good names up here.--^talk 05:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear! ħuman 07:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX

Instead of stumping for myself here, or stating what my "agenda" as moderator would be (see my third point below), I will outline what I think are the qualities we need in our moderators to make them able to perform the requisite duties, and let the reader decide the rest.

1. Most importantly, we must remember the old saw, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ("who watches the watchmen?"). Moderators are tasked with watching the Wiki and defusing conflicts by telling people to cool it off. They cannot very easily do this if they are the ones who need to be told to cool off. Hence, we do not want to elect moderators who are on record as being drama queens, or who are particularly prone to edit-warring or engaging in ad hominem-laced disputes with other editors.
2. If the body of moderators is to function at all, moderators must take their role — and the Wiki — with a certain degree of seriousness, and be willing to perform their duties. We have a number of antinomian or anarchistic editors who seem to enjoy sitting back and grabbing a bag of popcorn when HCM erupts or when trolls strike. We also have a number of editors who treat the Wiki as one big joke. Moderators who think the very disputes they are tasked with resolving are good entertainment or a joke will not perform their duties well.
3. Moderators must come to their duties completely free of any "agenda." As the moderator position has hitherto been delineated, it is not a "judge, jury, and executioner" role, but a role requiring them to stay completely impartial through the worst of Wiki conflicts. A good moderator must be able and willing to act in a completely even-handed manner, to call a vote on a tendentious question, not stack it in favor of their own position, and abide by the result when it is over. It would therefore be unwise to elect moderators with a history of "leaving and never coming back," or making similar theatrical exhibitions of hurt feelings when things did not go their way.

In Plato's Republic, he said in the person of Socrates that when there is no compulsory process to fill public offices, the best-qualified people are nowhere to be found, unless brought in by the fear that some less-qualified person will take their place. I fear we have already lost more than one good moderator to refusal of the nominations; but I think that if everyone votes with these guidelines in mind, we can pick out the best of those who will go on the ballot. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

you've got my vote. unless you bang an intern. that shit would be unforgivable! I especially like your first point, btw--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ty

Much as I'd love to think of something to write, I'm going to be gone starting June 20th until July 3rd-4th, without any form of electronic communication whatsoever. Please bear that in mind at the voting booth, if elected mod under our current timetable, I would be unable to perform my duties for a while. Thank you. Тy^Yes? 18:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Weaseloid

I would like RationalWiki to remain essentially anarchic and egalitarian, as it traditionally has been, and do not want to see moderators, or any other group, become an Owsla of privileged users who can ride roughshod over the rest of the community. When I take action to stop a situation from getting out of hand, as is sometimes necessary, I think I do so fair-handedly and with the minimum of fallout, and this should be what the moderator role is all about. I don't believe in rigidly enforcing community standards as laws or in punishing users for the sake of punishing them. Sanctions should only be taken when users are causing demonstrable harm or disruption to the wiki, community or its members, and these cases should continue to be decided by the community at large. I stay out of factions, cabals, clubs and cliques, LANCB and HCM. Don't know what else to mention; I think that about covers it. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And freedom of speech. There seems to be a worrying tendency recently to try to censor or censure users who say something controversial or borderline offensive/insulting, & I don't think it's a good thing. I think that, by & large, users should be allowed to speak their mind, within reasonable limits (i.e. no overt hate speech, personal threats, unauthorised personal info or libel), rather than maintain an atmosphere of enforced & artificial civility. When somebody is being particularly vindictive or unreasonable, a warning or temporary action may be necessary, but users shouldn't necessarily be admonished every time they use a bad word or risk hurting somebody's feelings. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

& It would be nice if, once this election is over & the community has settled into the new structure, we could move on from this collective navel-gazing & get back to srs wiki bsns like creating productive article content & having fun. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that despite the HCM, the wiki has still been quite productive. it's just behind the scenes where there's trouble--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there's been productive activity, but there's also been a lot of attention focused on site politics - most of it necessary, since there were things that needed sorting out. But it would be good to see the site focus shift back to what it should be on (the missions, current events, snark, etc) & the community a bit more relaxed than they have been of late. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

MordantMaenad, formerly Blue

• I would like an end to the "cowboy justice" of our past, in which one single editor feels he or she has the authority to summarily inflict a punishment on another. Apart from emergency counter-vandalism efforts, I would never use the moderator's authority unilaterally - or pretend that I, as a single user, am judge, jury and executioner.
• I believe the best way of resolving big disputes is by engaging the community in a robust discourse, but ensuring that the discourse does not devolve into disorganized flaming or trolling.
• I would work hard to prevent small disputes from becoming big disputes, by trying to "nip them in the bud," as it were.
• I believe the ultimate goal of the moderator system is to ensure the wellbeing of the community, and to that end, I would do the absolute minimum required action that the situation would need. No hierarchy for hierarchy's sake, or punishment for punishment's sake. I have consistently assumed good faith even in the most trying of times... and I would never use authority for authority's sake.
• I feel I am even-tempered and cool-headed enough to make good on the above promises. That's about all I can think of right now. Blue (is useful) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll vote for you if you give me credit coming up with your new user name.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Π

I have been on RationalWiki a long time and would hazard a guess that most of you know me. I stand on nothing more than my record. I was a crat back in the day when there were only a few dozen and we essentially preformed the moderator role that is now being proposed. I have no agenda or goals as a moderator. My philosophy is that we can all build this project if we behave like intelligent, mature adults. - π 12:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Aboriginal Noise

I'd like to echo Π's sentiments, in that if we all work together, and act in the mature way that I know we can, this can be an incredible site. I may not have been around as long as most of the other candidates, having joined in July 2008, but my heart is in the right place. My only agenda is to keep the peace and move the project on to better things. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 13:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster

I've been here since July of 2007 and the community we have created here has come to mean an awful lot to me. It seem as though the posts above me are all expressing variations on a theme: Nobody really want to see any sort of heavy-handed power being exercised by mods, and we all trust the community to do the right thing--it's just that sometimes a bit of friendly guidance might make doing the right thing easier. If I get "modded," I promise to do everything I can to be fair and even-handed in my use of the powerz. Most of all, I want to encourage people to vote, because this won't work if the community feels like there wasn't a decent quorum of votes cast, and whoever wins, I want to encourage people to respect the system and let it work. Nobody wants to go through another prolonged, ugly episode of needless HCM. This new system will only work if we let it. Thanks.... P-Foster (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm new here I assume HCM is headless chicken mode, but I'd appreciated all abbreviations taken into double brackets. Thank you. JimJast (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

PsyGremlin

My philosophy is simple: Wiki and community before personality. The moderators' job is to ensure the wiki, which is "powered" by people, runs smoothly and is not disrupted, especially by the rouge actions of a single user. Thus, anything that has a negative impact on that smooth running, needs to be nipped in the bud as quickly, quietly and efficiently as possible. Most importantly, there must be consistency - irrespective of who is involved.

This might result in becoming unpopular with some people. So be it - this is a job and a responsibility, not a popularity contest. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as the trains run on time, it's all good. ħuman 04:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as people who think they can do whatever the fuck they like are kept in line, it's all good. --PsyGremlinTala! 08:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as this pork chop still tastes fine, it's all good.

As long as the verses don't seem to all rhyme, it's all good. The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 08:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dick Turpis

Until we know exactly what the moderators will be doing, it is a bit difficult for me to describe how I would see myself handling the position. As a "moderator" in the general sense of the word, there are a few things I think I can bring to the table. Though I've been a member of this site for nearly 4 years, I sort of feel I've kind of been under he radar here, and I'm not as well-known as many of the old timers and active newer users, so here are some traits I think I possess which will be beneficial, and some additional ramblings:

• Neutrality: I have managed to stay out of basically all factions/disputes/altercations/etc. I have no allegiances. I have made few real friends here and (I'm pretty sure) no enemies. My goal has always been to handle situations based on the merits, not the personalities involved. Hell, I've defended Andy Schlafly at WiGO Talk when I thought he was being treated unfairly on several occasions (though still few and far between; 99.9% of Schlafly criticism is deserved, but I digress).

• Civility: While not always Mr. Manners, I've always tried to refrain from hurling insults at people, even when they piss me off. I can't think of an example of an insult helping settle a dispute.

• Patience: I'm willing to try to see matters through to a conclusion, even when others have lost interest. A few discussions I've had with RobS are pretty good examples, especially since his very manner strains patience to its breaking point very quickly.

• Empathy: I'm pretty good at putting myself in others' shoes and seeing things from their perspective, which helps resolve disputes fairly.

I do not want to see RW become rules-oriented the way Wikipedia is, and I don't have too many worries it will be, regardless of who is elected. The entire issue of rules is a conundrum; absent them people can do whatever they want, but with too many we lose the free spirit of the site. "Community standards" and "guidelines" are great, but if unenforceable they mean little, and if enforceable they are simply rules by a different name. To this end, I think the role of moderator should be spelled out better, specifying what sort of actions they are authorized to take and for what. "Stopping discussions that have become destructive in nature" is vague and can easily be abused, and ex post facto law can emerge when certain editors have the power to enforce rules that aren't clear. I would like it to be established that moderators cannot act unilaterally on anything other than a quick, temporary action designed to cool down an escalating situation (and even this should be handled very delicately, and done rarely), and otherwise need to work as a group.

On an optimistic note, the catalyst for the latest HCM I guess was about promotion/demotion, and was an almost inevitable result of the haphazard method of making new crats. If nothing else, this new system will resolve that problem by eliminating bureaucrats, and making moderators elected, so just by existing moderators will have already solved one sticky situation, even if none of them ever lift a finger in their new roles. Yay.

Thanks for reading. Sorry it isn't more concise. DickTurpis (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Eira

My record speaks for itself. Either you'll vote for me, or you won't, I'm not going to particularly change your mind with anything I say here. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You might if you promiss to give up your accidental crypto creationist position and stop insisting on stopping me from opposing creationism with science in general and Einsteins' theory in particular. JimJast (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

JImJast has a history of trolling. I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So I guess it must go to an ex-troll instead. :-( Till next. JimJast (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls I'm not Jesus (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alyssa Bryant

I'm a nice girl and I will not be abusive with the tools. I believe that being a moderator is serious fucking business and would not play around as a moderator. I would not bite newbies or act unilaterally on serious issues. Now that's not to say I wouldn't act in an emergency situation, or that I intend to be the grump that says no more joke blocks, but screwing around with things that moderators have access to is a no-no. In addition, as former troll, I know how trolls operate, so I know how to counter them. I also know how wonderful acceptance really is for newbies acting in good-faith. I believe I have matured greatly since my early days here at RW, and I hope the community will give me the chance to serve this wonderful wiki as a moderator. RationalWiki could use a cheerleader as a moderator. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Miss "I fucked up Wikipedia and chose to brag about it." Keep dreaming. I don't see how anyone could trus you here. Please tell me this is a joke.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. RationalWiki could not use a cheerleader as moderator. They are a nefarious farce that seeks to exploit the less powerful. Also, why are you calling this play-thing of yours "wonderful"? If you get elected, welcome to Paradise!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally find your comments hurtful and find it unnecessary to attack someone on such a personal level (cheerleaders are a nefarious farce, you say), but I was prepared for criticism and even trolling when I signed up for this. I've changed since my days of vandalizing, and I don't brag about it anymore. RW is not "my play-thing" either; this is Human's wiki, not mine. <3 But you're entitled to your opinion and I thank you for your commentary. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I offer my apologies. I have just developed a phobia of cheerleaders and the like over the years (see some of my entries on Illogicopedia when the servers ain't down) and dished up that criticism under that vehicle. I really am sorry you found my comments hurtful, and hope you don't decide to vandalize here, WP, CP, Uncle Pete, or anywhere else. I just remember the crap you did before and expected it again. But, I do reserve the right to retract this apology if you do indeed turn RationalWiki into the USSR.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fine I actually anticipated alot worse. The criticism of my past here was well taken it's just I didn't see the need to make it personal, but I actually fully expected some trolls say far worse. I gave up trolling when I was screwing with Goonie, pretending to be his long lost sister (I had no idea he actually had a sister) and it made me feel bad for trolling on such a personal level. In time I've also come to feel bad for trolling people on Wikipedia and even Conservapedia. I've wanted to make up for what I've done but I just don't know how I guess because I don't know anything about anything that I can improve here really. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hell, there really ain't much I can do to improve RW, and I'm not a troll. I guess you screwed up CP, WP, RW and God knows what else. But, if you are interested, a guy started a more moderate version of Conservapedia, called Ameriwiki. You could start constructive contributions there. Or PJR at ASK. 'Tis a really sad story you tarnished your reputation like that, but crap like this is one of the reasons I developed mah phobia in the first place. But, really, those other wikis I linked to should suit you well if you want to be a legitimate contributor. Hell, I would invite you to Uncyclopedia or Illogicopedia, but those are parody wikis. But, I wish you good luck in any future endeavors and I hope to see you at KFC soon.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad Hoomin

"I would like RationalWiki to remain essentially anarchic and egalitarian, as it traditionally has been, and do not want to see moderators, or any other group, become an Owsla of privileged users who can ride roughshod over the rest of the community." (the mustelid) I'm on board with that.

"I believe the best way of resolving big disputes is by engaging the community in a robust discourse" (MordantMaenad, formerly Blue) Interesting concept. We used to do that, until Armondikov, Nx, and Trent decided to turn things upside-down and create a power structure.

"I have been on RationalWiki a long time and would hazard a guess that most of you know me. I stand on nothing more than my record. I was a crat back in the day when there were only [three]" ... "My philosophy is that we can all build this project if we behave like intelligent, mature adults" (Pi Guy) Props.

Mmmm, cabbage!

"I've been here since [May] of 2007 and the community we have created here has come to mean an awful lot to me. It seem as though the posts above me are all expressing variations on a theme: Nobody really want to see any sort of heavy-handed power being exercised by mods" (P-Foster) Except the children who seem to require parents to govern their internet activity.

"As a wiki-anarchist, I advocate extremely limited governance. I believe this community is more resilient and capable of handling its own disputes than this current process gives it credit for. I sincerely wish we'd even discussed giving the former bureaucrat position the moral authority and enforceable policy guidance necessary to stop turdblossoms as they occurred and prevent a few of the events that brought us to this point. The Community Guidelines weren't far from being able to accomplish what we needed. But here we are. If we're not going back to fix the old system, how do we move forward? " (Slutty Roux)

PsyGremlin: FUCK OFF. You lie about me on your blog, you are nothing but garbage. Do you realize how little respect I have for you and your private hate site? You may be a decent person in part of your life, but your blog is not evidence of that. "In a previous post, I stated that RationalWiki ‘crat and Foundation Trustee Human’s actions were “condemned by all.” Human took exception to this and stated in the article’s comments that: The second is a boldface lie, [PsyGremlin]. You lie. Do you know what lying is? It is when you state as a fact a blatantly [...]" [1]

"Until we know exactly what the moderators will be doing, it is a bit difficult for me to describe how I would see myself handling the position. ... I do not want to see RW become rules-oriented the way Wikipedia is. ... Thanks for reading. Sorry it isn't more concise." (Dick Turpis)

"My record speaks for itself. Either you'll vote for me, or you won't, I'm not going to particularly change your mind with anything I say here." (Eira)

"I'm a nice girl and I will not be abusive with the tools." (Alyssa Bryant)

That's my platform. And I guess some people I'd vote for, except for PsyGremlin. How many votes do we get? PS, I like RationalWiki, I always have. I don't like the authoritarians who want people to have power over others here. ħuman 04:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot to state the obvious and give credit to the above-quoted people for their words, and also to thank them for putting their thoughts in ways I respect and appreciate. Except PsyGremlin, of course. He's a complete asshole. ħuman 04:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Look in the mirror sometimes, asshole. -- Nx / talk 05:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nx, when someone lies about me and I call them an asshole, it is not an invitation for you to make an ass out of yourself. ħuman 06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No Human, you are the asshole here. -- Nx / talk 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear; this page is going the right way to turn into the intellectual equivalent of a U.S. presidential campaign. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There weer also a couple other people I'd vote for but I couldn't quote them directly without making myself a liar, lol. AD for one. Probably another there too. ħuman 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to excuse Psygremlin for any inaccuracies in that blog post; he seems to have been rather agitated when he wrote it, to the degree of forgetting that I did not cast a vote during your trial. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway. My main point was to "campaign" by quoting things I think other people said well that I could stand by. And running into Psy took a lot of the fun out of it, since I was enjoying quoting my intelligent friends. That was my main point, sorry if that got lost in the poison pen of someone I disagree with. ħuman 06:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've got my vote Human. <3 Alyssa Bryant (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And Human's reaction above is evidence enough why you shouldn't vote for him. He couldn't be impartial if he tried, especially when editing drunk, liek he normally does. The guy whose only contribution to fixing the clusterfuck he started has been to bitch from the sidelines and call Trent a liar. This is the reaction of a sad old man, who is scared that suddenly it's not going to be "his" wiki anymore. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah good post. Standards are high here at SpiteWiki. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to stay Switzerland on whether Psy or Human are assholes, but I trust Human. I do remember the time he decratted Blue, but I'm all about acceptance and second chances, and I think he deserves my support. We're all human and make mistakes (see that pun?). Alyssa Bryant (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I like Human too, and so I hope he doesn't take any offense when I say that I probably won't be voting for him. It's not because I think he'd be a bad moderator, I just think that some other people have cooler heads and no giant public feuds. Sorry, buddy :( --^talk 03:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) My only concern with Human being a moderator is that he tends to be involved in a lot of our spates of HCM, and if he were to become involved with another one we would have one less moderator to deal with it. Basically the same thing AD said. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good comments well taken, all. Keep in mind there is a statistical reason I have been involved in more conflicts, etc. here. Because I have been involved so much. Doesn't necessarily make me "mod" material, but can I run for "rocker" in the next election? ħuman 03:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RobSmith

• I have extensive experience in dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration, constroversial discussions, unresolved historical questons, and contempory partisan issues.
• I strongly believe ad hominems are a sign one side is running out of gas.
• I feel a touch of humor can diffuse a difficult situation.
• While I personally feel uncomfortable trashing people, I'd hate to see Rationalwiki adopt a WP-style NPA policy. Good natured ribbing and the ability to say what you think about others uniquely sets Rationalwiki apart from wikis like Conservapedia or Wikipedia. Personal animosities, however, can endanger a project's overall objectives, and need to be discouraged, resolved, or kept out.
• I have the uncanny abiity to see things from all perspectives involved, within a 360 degree circumference.
• If I should ever make a mistake, I'm quick to cover my ass, and pledge to do so while acting in the capacity of others as a Modertor.
• As Nixon said <wipes tear> "The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker."

You have brown hair, and therefore everything you say here is invalid, and wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. JimJast (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

eh you're just a bunch of bigots who can't handle the idea of a guy withg brown hair in a position of responsibility. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 14:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lumenos

There is but one cure for heedless chicken mode. DON'T LOOK AT IT MARION! Apparently this is like Lawful Jamaicans but serious this time. Anybody can already do most of the things the moderators are supposed to do but I guess they may feel more invited if they are elected. The crats basically have the role of "resolving" conflicts since most of us are sysops. Why don't we elect the crats?

I will act only when called upon for arbitration (probably by email). I'm actually busy lately (got a couple chickens behind me sitting on muscovy eggs and I still need to build a coop) so expect a waiting period of a few months. If you have not forgotten about the issue by then, let me know how I may better assist you.

I have some other ideas:

• Have a chatroom or other wiki where the flaming nincompoops are sent if they are disrupting the Recent Changes. "Moderators" may suggests they go someplace without the usual audience, unless one or three other editors request that they stay.

Thank you for voting Lumenos and enjoy your visit.

~ Lumenos (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)