RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive16

Propaganda goes here

Spud

Vote for the best of British!

So here we are once more. Again, this seems to have been one of the quieter years that I can remember on RationalWiki. We've had a few daft sods who failed to learn from their mistakes. We seem to have briefly had one very active single-purpose editor who thought that just because Fundamentalst Christians think something is bad, we automatically think it's good. We had somebody who thought he'd be running in this election and could then dedicate this wiki to the glory of Stalin. But I don't think anybody has come here in the past few months who really believed they had a chance of destroying RationalWiki from the inside. The days of trolls and vandals having the impression they could just run about with impunity are over. The time when anybody who wished the wiki harm could be elected as a Mod or a Board member is long since over. We've repeatedly shown we're not going to take any crap from anyone who's just here to make trouble. And that's a bloody good thing too.

I don't think there are many users here who don't know who I am right now. But I'll say again that I've been here since 2011 and my time here has been remarkably free of drama. Sure, there have been times when I've thought about packing this place in. But the bad times on RationalWiki were only ever temporary for me and the community always showed itself in the best light in the end. I've tried to remain visible by coming here to edit twice a day every day. Although I turned 50 just over two months ago, I think I've stll got the energy to keep that editing pattern up. As a matter of fact, I'm feeling great. I still have no idea what I've done to become as popular and respected as I am. Frankly it amazes me that I keep getting nominated and reelected year after year. But I'm still delghted each time it happens.

If I am reelected, I promise to continue with the pattern of behaviour that seems to have served me so well for all these years. I will keep an eye on all the developments on the wiki and weigh in with my opinions on RationalWiki's issues of the day. I will always follow my conscience in all votes and so vote for what I genuinely believe is best for the wiki as a whole and the users involved, whether or not that's the most popular option. I will relish each opportunity to guide a new user and will always try to answer all questions about the wiki and its policies as accurately as I can. I may also return to my long stalled project of translating articles into French, Spanish and Esperanto. (I take requests.)

And if I'm not reelected, well, I've had a great run and there'll be no hard feelings. I'll also do most of what I just said anyway. But I'll do my best not to come off as a mini-mod or wikcop.

I am delighted by the way RationalWiki has evolved over the years that have coincided with my time here. I truly believe it can be a force for good and I am very proud to be a part of its history. Spud (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Techpriest

So uh... yeah. Hi! It's me, Techpriest. Your friendly neighborhood admin/tech. Wasn't quite as super duper active the last year but I chalk that up in the most positive interpretation possible: You guys weren't setting things on fire, so there was less need to mess things up and I've been content just observing from the back and commenting where I see fit. If you don't know me; I'm the admin of the RationalWiki Discord (not official!) and have in the past been a moderator on the site in 2021 and 2022. I also run User:Inferno Bot (our archive bot) and am a tech on this site, which means that I in part maintain the interface and our spamfilters.

I'll just be fortright on my main reason for running: 2024 is a pretty relevant year, just like it is every 4 years. That is to say, the United States is electing someone to office and for some reason that makes it the problem of everyone else, including those of us who aren't in the United States. Which brings me to my intent - RW during election season is arguably one of the less fun places to moderate. Besides the usual deluge of "but I thought it was RATIONALwiki" (drink) passerby dummies who always seem to peak in election years, this is also the season during which inane infighting and slapfights tend to pop up the most.

Any major event on RationalWiki is weak to the risk of what we'll call "overreporting", where our attempt to cover literally everything at once blows right up in our faces and leaves the resulting articles a complete mess (for an example that still needs to be addressed, just look at our Brexit page). As a result, my intent and promise if I'm elected as a moderator is simple: a light touch (page locks) on controversial pages and recommending to not jump the gun when a new WIGO-worthy entry comes out to update our pages, strict-ish vetting when people start arguing about sources (for some reason everyone gets the most niche sources possible to support their point) and ideally reguiding slapfights in the Bar before we have to drag things into ATIM or the Coop. I hope it will never come to that, but if it does, you have my promise: I will follow the Community Standards and make sure you have the fair room to make and defend your case.

As a mod, that's really my main promise: I've historically not been afraid to listen to the community and follow the CS, but I'm also not worshipping it like it's the Bible - the CS is meant to be amended. I've been involved in getting a number of CS changes through in the past to have it better reflect our community policies and should it ever be needed, I'll do so again. My motto really is in this case: "if it doesn't work, then let's see what we can do to make it work and then get it to work".

If my election fails... well, I'll just keep making my suggestions, pop in the bar every once in a while and do the source thing. The only difference is that I don't have the means to actually back it up with power, but I'm not gonna mini-mod or cop about it. You'd basically all just be as free to ignore and block war me as you'd be able to do with any sysop.

I've served the site before as a mod, I hope I'll serve the site again. I think the wiki is an amazing resource and I hope that me being a mod this year will help it remain that way for many years to come. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Flandres

I've been at this a couple years. (Sometimes I'm surprised it's been that long-I'm not one of the more memorable people here.) A lot of you know my general "gentle but not negligent/don't use my position to favor my opinion" approach. Mods are not monarchs and that will be especially important to remember this next year. (Those of you who knew me before I became a mod may not I've been a lot more reluctant to express opinions on major issues than I used to be. Subordination of the self-not betrayal, subordination-is very important in this kind of work.)

Again, I've been a mod for around two years now. I often try and judge politicians by their record rather than their promises so it seems right I be judged in this manner as well.-Flandres (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

CorruptUser

The crotchety old fart, though not that old. I've been here a few years, so basically, I have a record. Both good and bad, but there you go. As Mod, my entire philosophy was to keep a hands-off approach unless absolutely necessary. I will continue to do so if re-elected.

Beyond this, I'm still a tech; I occasionally fiddle with some of the stuff in the background of the website, especially the edit filters, though I'm far from the only one doing so. I'm happy to say that at least one of my filters has been successful in limiting the mass-spam we used to get. Additionally, I think my "articles for demotion" was useful in getting us to turn a few more articles silver and gold, so hooray for site improvements. That stuff will happen regardless of elections, but hey, that's what I've been up to. CorruptUser 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Plutocow

First alternate from the last vote, now running again. I feel by now I've been here for a good amount of time, and while my specific level of activity may ebb and flow I've been consistent at showing up daily to clean up spam, vandalism, and formatting. I sometimes even work on major mainspace projects, Chordata being a recent one, even if I have a few abandoned (for now) drafts due to ADHD. I've been fairly active in helping resolve some conflicts here, and while this year has not been drama free I think I've done well to avoid making things personal. Overall, aside from one or two moderate incidents this year has been pretty peaceful, and while we have what is going to be a frustrating election and two major world conflicts with no end in sight, but aside from the typical trolls and vandals we've had no major blowups thus far we've done pretty well and I believe encouraging light policies like specific page bans will keep things going on. While I haven't been a mod, I think my experience as a Tech speaks for itself and I've been able to shut down multiple persistent vandals and spambot waves. So with that, I hope you give me a chance. Thanks, Plutocow (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Bongolian

I have been a moderator continuously since 2017, consequently I am running on my record. I stand by using light-handed moderation when possible. I wrote most of the civility page, so you can hold me to it, or improve it if you like. My mascots are the bongo and the bongo Despite the latter mascot, and despite having started the RationalWiki: The Musical page, I am rather unmusical. Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

RWRW

My main purpose in standing is to widen the pool of candidates, and make the election more competitive.

However, should I be elected, I pledge to serve a full term and not throw in the towel early again, keep an eye on the coop and ATIM and participate there when necessary, and not allow personal biases interfere with my moderating duties.

I’ve been a mod in the past, and am prepared to do it again if that’s what the mob wants. If I lose I’ll breathe a sigh of relief continue posting on WIGO pages, work on my essays and pop into the Saloon bar from time to time. —RWRW (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ariel31459

This is the fifth or sixth time that I have been nominated to be a moderator, and I think those who have done so proceeded on the assumption that I have displayed generally sound thinking. Perhaps I Flatter myself to think so. Nevertheless I am grateful for those who do approve. For those who don't approve, I can only say, I'm sorry for your troubles. I never expect others to think like me, despite their unwillingness to return the favor. I can tell you what I believe by stating what I don't believe. I am a Unitarian. I reject all forms of dogma excepting those that are contingent upon healthy necessity. You can have your god, your idea of evil, your cultural malaise, your utopian ideology, your own opinion. What folks generally believe to be pernicious, I would hesitate to propose, or if proposing, be willing to reconsider. I can promise to be as open minded as I have always tried to be, with moderate success.

I am an anti-authoritarian. I have on a few occasions, in the past, responded sternly to those who have inserted disingenuous or sententious text in some articles. But, this is the job of an editor and certainly of a sysops. I concede that as a moderator I would no longer have the option of disputing edits in the same manner. I would not, however hesitate to inform the historically recalcitrant of my own view with regard to the underhanded criticisms that appear on these pages from time to time.

I have noticed, in the past elections, when a candidate is not elected they generally drop out of active status, if not leave and never come back. I can promise you this will not happen if you fail to vote for me, that is, place my name in a favorable position on the ballot. No, the best way to get rid of me is to put my name first on the ballot, and I will be so affected by gratitude that I will fade away into indolence and inactivity, too timid to take up the tasks at hand for fear of giving offence to the mob in lieu of service to the instantiation of rationality.

KarmaPolice

The Boggle-playing Goat has returned, due to vague demand. I think I can assure the mob that I am human, are alive and can at least pass for sane. I also know how to use things like punctuation and paragraphs, which at least means I don't do walls of text. And I am semi-regular a visitor, even if I'm not that active here. I suspect I might make a vaguely-passable mod. So like last year; 'vote for me, unless you can think of someone better'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Candidate questions

Concerned citizen about moderation challenges coming next year

So I think 2024 is going to be quite a challenging year for site moderation, following a quiet last two or so years. We have Israel and Hamas fucking around, which has a not-insignificant chances of inflaming tensions here. The last Israel-Palestine site freakout, which I wasn't here for, drove many users off the site and looked to have been quite the HCM. We also have the 2024 US election cycle coming up, and the 2020 cycle caused some drama (I would know lol). So I guess my questions here are about what your plans are to tackle the upcoming year and how prepared you think you are to deal with it after a period of relative peace. Or maybe I'm overstating things too early. I don't really know, but I still have a bad feeling about what 2024 is going to do to the wiki. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Normally I'm hands off when it comes to this, but I think in the IP discussions, the moment anyone starts getting too spicy they just need a reminder to calm down. We'll have to restrict or lock the IP articles if it's too messy, which again, I'd prefer not to. If things get too spicy regardless, I'd be in favor of temporary topic bans, though nothing that results in permanent punishments unless exceptionally egregious. It sucks, but that's IP on the internet. CorruptUser 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned it in my campaign bit, but I'll just state it here for clarity: when we're dealing with developing situations that are prone to HCM, there are often a lot of very shall we say... spirited editors who are willing to sidestep both policy and source quality to get their point of view into our pages or to throw hands with other editors in the Saloon Bar. My approach to this is to generally take a cautious stance for our mainspace: Israel-Palestine and the 2024 election are things that are happening, but our reporting on that doesn't have to be breaking - we're not the BBC, the New York Times or really any outlet of note (I don't think we're even journalists). Wait a few days, see how the situation develops and then come to a conclusion. Page locks are probably the best tool we have as moderators to prevent sysops from edit warring and from experience, this is the sort of situation where they're the most useful. Topic bans are the most extreme method, but if needed, I'd not be afraid to temporarily dish them out until at least the US election is over (I just really hope it won't come to that). As for our editors butting heads in the Bar; keep an eye on it, try to prevent the discussion from just people screaming at each other and in the case of disinformation; keep it close to the truth, check sources and don't be afraid to point it out - worst case, use a mod hat to get people to knock it off, but usually that's not needed. Generally speaking, 90% of bar conflicts just result in a few bruised egos. Those cases where it explodes, keeping a cool head is the most important thing; calmly look at the situation, figure out who is arguing with who, what the situation is about and then come to a decision without getting into pig wrestling. Impulsive editing is not helpful to anyone, and as a moderator, impulsive decisions can have further reaching consequences those our regular editors can make. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't add much Techpriest didn't already say. As a general rule I think we should avoid "horserace announcer" style articles-more relevantly than being potential flamebait they are invariably bad articles- but that is not something a mod can really enforce.

I'd rather not intervene in bar arguments. When we start getting Obsessive users who take disagreement way too personally and bring up their "rivalry" all across the site then it becomes a mod issue, but that is because of what is essentially harassment rather than tempers getting a little heated while discussing a complex issue. Intervening too early can make something HCM rather than calm it.

Sanctions should be reserved for those who try and editorialize in main space after being repeatedly told not to, those acting in bad faith, and those who abuse user rights in fits of rage.-Flandres (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We have a few new tools to deal with such situations that we didn't have last time, like topic bans and blocking a user from editing specific articles. If it goes to the level of flame wars and insulting other users, then it becomes a moderation problem, but for now I see the chances of that happening again to be rather low; we've gotten better at disciplining uncivil jackasses over the years. Plutocow (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think in the past moderators have tried to stay in the background. This is plausible as a strategy. Wait to see where opinions stand, rather than risk offending a malicious majority. I think that it is sufficient to believe that one is acting correctly. If another moderator told me to back off from my approach to a given problem, I would do so, however I would want to hear their reasons so as to inform myself concerning future activities. To put it as simply as possible, I would take no rights away from any regular user, and at most put a temporary halt to disruptive disputes, allowing time for more punitive moderators to take action. However I would, in the end advocate for a reasoned approach.

The coming elections in 2024 do not worry me. If partisans fight on talk pages, I say good, that is where disagreement should take place. What could go wrong? The site taken over by Trumpists? I think I would die laughing. Will users claim to be on the side of justice but not support the democrats? Maybe. It will not avail them. Nothing that happens here has any import in the world beyond the satisfaction we achieve by exchanging our opinions, which I regard as essential.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Middle-east war/conflict is a possible harbinger of vituperous conflict upon this wiki. I think it might be worthwhile to propose a realistic criterion for moderators who choose to come forward and face the lions, if and when, one pride battles another. You are in a fix if you actually care who wins. You should practice not caring, because neither side will care what the other side cares about. To not care brings a perfect symmetry to the problem of dealing with angry users. I have a great deal of concern about everyone's well being but that usually resolves into a fervent desire that other people avoid being involved in violence. I can honestly say I don't care who wins any war as long as violence comes to an end. I would except Russia however, because they have been crushing and murdering eastern Europeans since my grandfather left the shores of the Baltic over 100 years ago. Fortunately nobody cares about the Russian's success here so I can leave that to others.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been on RW long enough to remember the massive battles over the Israel and Palestine pages from 2015-2016 (resulting in at least one permaban and one sysoprevoke). These disputes came from opposing partisans who had been given sysop rights and subsequently fought it out on our pages. We now have better tools to deal with these situations: civility as part of Community Standards, interaction bans, and topic bans. If necessary, we also have the old standby of locking pages when necessary. Bongolian (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this will result in anything we can't handle. There may be some more Saloon Bar brawls. That could lead to some topic bans and interaction bans. I doubt that we'll allow anything like the long drawn-out feud between the one very pro-Israel and the one very pro-Palestine editor that we had before to happen again. And we'll undoubtedly get drive-by vandals posting pro-Trump stuff, just like we've had since 2016. I doubt many of them will want to stay and debate. So all in all, I don't think there's a need to be overly concerned. Spud (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Phew! Between the HCM-1 I/P drama having a chance of making a reappearance (especially now that Israel has been subjected to a 9/11-scale attack and has responded by disproportionately glassing Gaza like never before as we speak), I'm so glad I decided not to run for mod again- especially now that I'm in my upperclassman years at college, so I'd have a nonzero chance of once again hibernating halfway through my term like I did in 2021. Mostly having to at worst rename people with hateful usernames to "Mr. Poot" and helping get a couple of Conservapedians coop-banned while winning one over (Sievert) was one thing, but being a frontline defender of this beloved and ancient site from HCM over one of the most incendiary geopolitical debates in human history would even further add to my stresses. As of right now, the inevitable discussion about I/P on here (curiosity of which is part of what stirred me) appears (touch wood) mostly quarantined to the Saloon Bar, and thus far the I/P articles seem to have been protted before any serious attempts at starting another HCM era could be made. And no objections have thus far been made to my recent updating of "Israel", where knowing what's at stake, I tried my best to handle it in an unbiased way, making a point not to cite such wonderful narrators on that particular issue as BBC, NYT or Jerusalem Post. May the winners, the FSM willing, have it in them. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 05:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Content

Will potential moderators try to push content policies that will remove content that goes against any potential agendas they have or that they dislike that goes beyond standard "not missional" or "is bullshit"? Some information that has been removed hasn't been wrong, but the removing editor disagreed with the content. As a mainspace editor I am curious to see if moderators will use the weight of their authority (let's be honest, being a moderator has weight to it that the average editor lacks despite the "moderators have only limited community authority and the mob is in total power" schtick we have going here) to dictate their personal vision and preferences for mainspace content. Carthage (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the Moderators is to settle slap-fights that get out of hand. Using Mod "authority" for anything beyond keeping things civil can be grounds for removing a mod. CorruptUser 21:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am as biased as any fellow human being on the planet. Sarcasm aside; the usual approach for contested/reverted segments that can't reach agreement is for a mod to put it up to a vote (while leaving the article in the "original state", which depending on if it's a recent addition or not can mean removing the section temporarily, with page protections if need be) for 7 days, then decide what happens with it depending on the outcome. That's the full extent of moderator authority on contested sections. For entire articles, we use AfD; outright deletions outside the process are generally either reserved for spam or content that is general wikipasta. On AfDs, votes from mods count as equal to users, anyone can put up an AfD and finally we don't have strict reasons to state why you vote a certain way. I see no reason to deviate from this process, it's served us well over the years. Insofar as recusions on specific votes go - I've recused myself from votes in the past if I suspected that my ability to make a clear decision was compromised due to personal friendships with editors, and should such a situation arise, I would do so again. I see no reason to prevent moderators from proposing new policies the same way a regular user could. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I wouldn't push an agenda as mod. Honestly, I don't think mods have any particular power to "legally" do what carthage is describing.-Flandres (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not legally but through the social power that comes with being a moderator, a senior member of the community? I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss this. Only so many community members get involved in mainspace editing anyway. Carthage (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

With regards to mainspace editing, I'd mostly be doing the same thing as always: reverting obvious vandalism, discussing controversial edits on the talkpage, blocking edit warriors from specific articles until they calm down, etc. I wouldn't be enforcing any "agenda" beyond RW's mission, and while my opinions on certain topics are known I wouldn't try to push them any more than I am doing now, and not as official RW mod policy of course. Plutocow (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think "seniority" and more affects how influential members are in discussions and disputes, but I think that's more a primary thing besides who is elected moderator at a given time, and that who is elected a moderator is more a secondary thing which tends to be influenced by that primary thing. Not all members (especially newcomers) even keep track of who's a moderator, but it matter when disputes and votes about the presence and acts of people take place -- though even then, moderators don't always partake and often other people largely end up setting the tone. But some people treat the moderators as exemplifying the values of the community, so who's a moderator can have outsize influence on what some say when they disagree with what goes down and what they conclude about the wiki (particularly if they hate some moderator). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I support missionality (and to a lesser extent not giving air to internet nobodies) as the key to keeping or deleting topics or subtopics. I generally avoid being the first to vote on something, so as not to give undue influence on a vote. I can exercise the power of persuasion just like any other user here. Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no agenda to push beyond that of RationalWiki's core mission and I do not think being a mod makes me the ultimate judge of the truth. I have never undone any edit based purely on my own ideology. I think the most common reasons for me to undo edits are because some well-meaning BoN thinks "wiki=neutral" and tries to make an article less biased or someone has tried to improve the writing and only made it worse. (Maybe that's subjective, but as an English teacher of 25 years, I ought to know the difference between good and bad writing.) Spud (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the Use of Sock Accounts

It has been common for some users on this wiki to use sock accounts for various purposes. I think that's fine. Some moderators may feel free to incorporate sock accounts into their moderation strategy. Do you think it is ethical to criticize a user through a sock account and follow up by moderating the dispute by supporting your own sock? I don't know that has happened here, but I do still have a sense of smell.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not ethical unless the moderator publicly owns up to the sock during the moderation. Bongolian (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there's a difference between an "alternate account", another account that you openly admit is you, and a "sock account", an account that's secretly you, that you may deny is you and treat as if it were another person. In broad terms, having an alternate account is ethical and having a sock account isn't, although I think it's only really a problem if it's used to attempt to rig votes. I do not think moderators should have any secondary secret accounts. I would urge anyone running in this election who has a sock account to come clean about it now. Spud (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Our main rule with socks is that you should be open about using them. Most users usually have them because they'd like to keep their mobile phone editing history separate from their desktop history (for... reasons I don't fully understand, but whatever, it's allowed) or because they've lost access to both the passwords and emails associated with their old accounts. For practical reasons, we've usually not given socks the moderation role (would just make it a hassle to do housekeeping with + the actual specific mod powers that go beyond what a sysop can do are rarely needed). With that in mind, a moderator using an undeclared second account to criticize a user and then follow it up with badgering them on their "main" account would be fraudulent and it would in my opinion constitute harassment and almost certainly is worth putting them in the coop for if found out (and at least on a personal level, I would personally consider this to be enough to apply sysoprevoke at minimum, with stronger consequences if the situation resulted in sanctions on the user being targeted by their actions). That said, I don't think this has happened. If you have reason to believe otherwise, I would strongly recommend bringing evidence and opening a Coop case. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've also used socks for testing the filters. Sometimes, you need an account with 0 edits or permissions to make sure you are catching the spam. CorruptUser 23:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This aged wonderfully.-Flandres (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Candidate endorsement sheet

Bongolian

• Endorsements

1. s'port CorruptUser 20:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. A bit of a fave so far. Chillpilled (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Been at this for many years, and he's a good sport. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
4. A very competent mainspace editor and moderator. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Long-time incumbent, no complaints here. Plutocow (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
6. One of the people who's done a lot to shape the wiki into the form we know and love today. Spud (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Ditto. Carthage (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
8. -Flandres (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Coming out of retirement juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust to say they should continue to be mod. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
10. Christopher (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
11. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements

1. A friendly, if weak livered fellow. Nice guys finish last.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   It wouldn't be an RW election without some douchebag who shows up just to anti-endorse all the candidates for no reason. Radio La Mesilla (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

2. ShabiDOO 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

CorruptUser

• Endorsements

1. While he has had a couple of cases of not following due diligence, I think his attitude towards conflict resolution is very mature. Not many people are willing to put themselves in the hot seat when their behavior attracts criticism, and I respect him for it. Plutocow (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. He's not corrupt. The Krusty Krab (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. He's always held opinions that were somewhat unpopular here, and has always been a good mod. Christopher (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
4. He has an unparalleled ability to stick his foot in his mouth, but he was a good mod in the past and doesn’t seem to hold grudges. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
5. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
6. ShabiDOO 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements

1. Not suited for this role given extensive history of expressing anti-LGBT views and incel apologia: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. That's just from skimming the first two pages of this user's contribution history. Noodles (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   3 is literally an addition I made to the incel glossary. THAT is the evidence you are using against me? CorruptUser 16:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

   3 isn't really strong evidence, but the others need to be refuted. I think they are stronger than 3. The Krusty Krab (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   The closest Noods has to a point is the LoTT, which I've apologized for, the rest is just a Gish Gallop. Which ones in particular do you want me to defend/clarify? CorruptUser 19:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Doesn't know when to shut up, and backs off from sock accounts.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
3. This user seems to be a good moderator, but skimming through the history provided by Noodles leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think I can in good conscience endorse this user as moderator. This one in particular is sus as hell: "Remember that oppression usually begins for good reasons, and often it's from the bottom-up rather than top-down." (I have also added citations from academic scholars saying that oppression is usually from the top-down rather than the bottom up, but that's neither here nor there.) This comment too, in a response to a comment by OSD about how rape allegations have historically been weaponized against the black community, and how you'll see conservatives bending over backwards to justify rape culture and those accused of (or even convicted) of rape and sexual assault: "Are Black people going out of their way to defend rapists?" Cory also cites known bullshitter and transphobe Libs Of Tiktok (which resulted in BonJohnson calling them out on it). While the situation seems to have been resolved (I wasn't here for it), not mentioning it leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, especially as Cory said that OSD should belong on a sexual predator registry. I am not going to be responding to any follow-up comments made to this, as a survivor of sexual assault and discrimination this very topic is incredibly triggering. Thank you to Noodles for bringing this up. Carthage (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, Noodles is your guy eh?UncleKrampus (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   Is that Oxyaena?Zatoichi (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   What? There's a big banner on the top of the site inviting everyone to comment on the Moderator Election. I thought I should at least have a look at it. I'm not familiar enough with the other candidates to register an approving vote but I thought I should at least weigh in if anyone stood out as unsuitable. That whole saying about having no right to complain about the current administration if you couldn't be bothered to vote. Noodles (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   Not getting Oxy vibes from Noodles, but a sock or a different user coming back under a new name who doesn't want to get into a fight directly. I have some suspicions about which other account(s) could be the same person, but, eh, my skin's pretty thick these days. If I met Noods in person, I'd buy them a beer, but if they want to continue to be antagonistic to me for dumb reasons, I'm not going to make the effort to be friends with people that hate me. What I will do, in the online space at least, is do my best to ignore them BUT defend them from harassment from others. Because that's the job; Rights only exist if they apply to people we don't like. CorruptUser 19:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

4. I'm personally meh on this guy. The Krusty Krab (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Too often Cory's Saloon Bar discussions consist of playing devil's advocate very passionately followed by a dig at people who subsequently disagree with him. Even with his arch-nemesis Oxy gone, the drag show comments of his leave a bad taste in my mouth. A user you can bait with even mild disagreement on topics he feels passionate about is not someone you can trust to prevent Israel-Palestine from inspiring another HCM-1 saga. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Goat

1. Has been a reasonably good moderator, but his opinions can be intemperate outside of moderation. Bongolian (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

And that's saying something. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Flandres

• Endorsements

1. No fights with me that I can recall CorruptUser 20:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Hasn't been very active, but was here on every ATIM case that happened over the last year, I guess. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. A bit inactive, but when he shows up handles conflicts well. Plutocow (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Has been a reasonably good moderator. Bongolian (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Seems to have a good head on their shoulders. Carthage (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Christopher (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
7. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
8. A bit inactive, but who am I of all people to complain about that? --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 06:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
9. ShabiDOO 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements

1. I like this user, but they've been a lot more inactive than I'd like to see in a mod. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Able enough, but too emotional. Doesn't know his place in the world.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Plutocow

• Endorsements

1. Pluto has been reasonable with meCorruptUser 20:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. As the person who nominated them I respect their due diligence in upkeep with the wiki. The fact they're not cishet is another point in my book. I would personally like to see more diversity in the mod team. Carthage (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I'm aware of the critiques but find them pretty overblown compared with the fact Plutocow is very active doing good for the wiki in general. Wasn't a "duh" endorsement thus why I didn't right away but yeah. Almost solely I was concerned with overzealous blocking, previously, but I don't even recall any cases of this I've seen recently. Other critiques I've heard I found pretty baseless. The thing with the YouTube vote was ultimately pretty trumped up in my eyes even if I could see where people were coming from either way. Chillpilled (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
4. They are OK. The Krusty Krab (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
5. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements

1. Plutocow cares a heck of a lot about the wiki and means well, but I'm not a fan of their willingness to go against the will of the mob or their zealousness in blocking. Soft anti-endorsement. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I was ready to support Plutocow, I even nominated them for the board early this year and said that they are overall a very competent despite making some mistakes.[19]. Plutocow is good at doing stuff that no one likes to do, like archiving and stuff. But I think the Peter Principle applies here. Plutocow has also been mini modding once in a while, and I think their work is subpar (see their terrible work at the YouTube vote discussion, probably the most extreme example). I don't think they are also good enough at group work. Indeed, Pluto is no good at relating to others, which is needed to some extent in order to be a good mod. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   I reversed my stance on the YouTube vote because one vote turned out to be invalid, but if it was valid my stance would've been correct by the standards of CS and the vote that was held. Saying that we should have ignored that because people were upset is a fundamentally illiberal and antidemocratic opinion that I'm surprised to see from you. Plutocow (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

3. The fact that they proudly display Hans Asperger on their userpage is kind of a red flag. I reverse my anti-endorsement. PLUTOCOW 2023!! The Krusty Krab (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   That's part of a pretty common userbox template. I thought about proposing a change recently to display Temple Grandin (a well-known person who's actually autistic, even specifically has Asperger's, unlike -- to my knowledge -- Asperger himself) instead but decided not to open that can of worms. If others have a mind to have it changed like me I suppose we can discuss elsewhere. This wasn't Plutocow's personal design choice. Chillpilled (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   Given that there doesn't seem to be an alternative user box for autism spectrum, I don't think that should be held against Plutocow. Discussion about changing the box can be held here: Template talk:User Aspie. Bongolian (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

4. A hard worker, but shoveling guano against the tide is fatal.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Spud

• Endorsements

1. Old-guard, kinda CorruptUser 20:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. No complaint that I can conjure. Chillpilled (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Been a mod for ages, probably a shoo-in for reelection. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
4. I have no complaints. Carthage (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
5. I still haven't forget whan Spud did for me a few years ago. Even when I'm running, (either for mod or for the board) Spud is my first vote. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Long-time incumbent, no complaints here. Plutocow (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Mature and level-headed, a welcome co-moderator. Bongolian (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
8. -Flandres (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Christopher (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
10. The Krusty Krab (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
11. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
12. ShabiDOO 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements

1. There isn't really a good reason not to vote for Spud. I know, I know, "but this is rationalwiki!" UncleKrampus (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Techpriest

• Endorsements

1. Useful member of the cabal CorruptUser 20:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Nice enough. Chillpilled (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Has her head on straight, been a good mod. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Doesn't seem to be very active, but is very helpful when she is. Carthage (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
5. 1 Also helped me when I most needed. 2 Was an excellent mod. 3 Just like Flandres, was active on major discussions. 4 I think we should have at least one woman as a mod. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Mature and level-headed, a welcome co-moderator. Bongolian (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
7. -Flandres (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Christopher (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
9. The type of person who could organize a booze up in a brewery. Spud (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
10. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
11. Excellent member of the cabal (there isn't one) --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
12. ShabiDOO 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements

1. A tough one. A tough one...(flips coin),...sorry, no.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ariel31459

• Endorsements

1. Few people here have done as much as Ariel has to keep discussions civil here. Strong support. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-Endorsements

1. Ariel has engaged in counter-productive edit-warring (that could arguably be called whitewashing) that took them to ATIM a month or two back, and this user has a history of making belittling comments of genuine criticism of their favored celebrities. Carthage (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

   But it was about bad format, not ideology. You seem to be involved in postmodernist nonsense. It seems you have been formally recognized with a welcome for about 3 months? What did you expect? I suppose you are a sock account, given your aggressive attitude. As a moderator, I will be expected to tolerate oblivious editing, and rely upon consensus. As an older sysops, I merely expressed my preferences removing a recent edit. The so-called edit warring was not counter-productive as my determination was preserved, though reasonably modified by the pizza guy. I want you to know that I understand your anxiety and that there is really nothing a moderator can do to impose unjustifiably on other users. Moderators have less power than the average sysops, and really tend to be very timid. I confess to not being timid.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   "Postmodernist nonsense." What exactly do you mean by that? These are meaningless buzzwords you're throwing out. You expressed your preferences by edit warring multiple times. Let's quote you from the talk page: "Harris is a well respected American intellectual. A small minority on the left don't like him. You can say what you like about him without the insulting intro. "Bigot" is just an empty insult and ironic when used against a reasonable person. Islamic scholars think we are all bigots."

   This was about a man who pushes racial pseudoscience and advocates for harmful racist policies (including racial profiling). This comment also demonstrates how you have a tendency to minimize and belittle genuine criticism of your favored celebrities. Edit warring is still edit warring, and whitewashing is still whitewashing. Reminder that you also removed content critical of Harris (including highlighting the Bosnian genocide) outside of the lede. How exactly is that not ideological? Carthage (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   The problems you have with separation of self are perplexing. "Bigot" is an empty insult as we are all bigots to someone's range of thinking. "Harris is a well respected American intellectual" is a true statement. That doesn't mean "I agree with him" on anything. As a matter of fact, I don't agree with him on more ideas than not. That's what intellectualism is all about. See my article on Anti-intellectualism in American Life.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   If "Harris is a well respected American intellectual" is irrelevant to the premise of your argument, then why bring it up? This seems to be a red herring then. Carthage (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I never said it was irrelevant. And you are quibbling.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   "Bigot is an empty insult as we are all bigots to someone's range of thinking." This seems to be a form of equivocation. "Bigot" is an accurate descriptor of the content mentioned in the article. It got edited to something more specific (Islamophobe), but that doesn't seem to do the whole thing justice given that Harris also pushes reactionary talking points onto a mainstream audience that have nothing to do with Islamophobia. So, yes, I question what relevance Harris' status as an intellectual has to do with anything. Insinuating that legitimate criticism of Harris is "anti-intellectualism" is incredibly disingenuous. Carthage (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   This seems to be a form of quibbling. I do not think you try hard enough the be coherent, but I don't hold that against you. I am shooed.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Nice way to leave a passive-aggressive parting shot while declaring that you're done flaming. Carthage (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I suppose anything could be called passive in internet disputes, but I think my statement was very direct and not at all passive. There was no insinuation intended. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   It's always you two arguing over Nothing — Aethieizt (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, I also am suspicious of the motives. I am just responding in a general sort of way. And I don't mean to be disagreeable, but we don't argue all that much. I think right here, right now comprises more text than we have ever exchanged in the past. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Seeing how Ariel responded to Carthage above does not draw me to their camp. EDIT-After watching this exchange unfold I have to upgrade to a harder anti-endorse. This is not how a mod should react to criticism. Ariel doesn't seem to have the maturity for the job.-Flandres (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I never would have expected you to do so. It is OK to favor intolerance. Many users do. I do not.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   What exactly do you mean by "intolerance"? Intolerance of what? You don't seem to tolerate criticism of Harris, seeing as how you removed content criticizing some of his talking points outside of the lede. Carthage (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I addressed that very question on my user talk page. It's still there.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   (EC) My two cents. I think Ariel's reaction was a bit too aggressive. I'm not going to remove my endorsement, but I think that maybe this discussion contradicts my other post when I said he that helps to keeps things civil. Also, if you want to discuss Harris or tolerance, I would like ask you guys to move to a talk page. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I won't ask for an explanation because I understand your response. It is the nature of moderation for the authorities to show that they are powerless and the best they can do is shoo away problems. Consider me shooed.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   ...for the moment.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Just a reminder that this user reverted edits on the Harris page 5 times. Carthage (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Are you confused about numbers? Really?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   You should stop re-litigating this dispute here. Go to the Harris talkpage, or maybe each others talkpages.-Flandres (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Fine with me. I would just appreciate it if the passive-aggressive insults stopped. I also already posted my two-cents on this issue as is, so I'm not gonna bother commenting on it further. Carthage (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   I do not accept straight language is insulting. Nothing I have said is passive aggressive. I can promise not to argue unreasonably as a moderator. The idea that 3-month users can come here and epitomize my work on this wiki with insinuations about bigotry and I should not respond is unacceptable. Harris has nothing to do with it. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   Ariel, you have been told twice to stop re-litigating this dispute on this page.-Flandres (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   As you are currently a moderator, I will agree to do so. However, I reserve the right of reply.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Does not seem suited for this role given tendencies displayed here. Noodles (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
4. The hell with this guy. Patience can look like stupidity. all the more so when you yourself are stupid.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Getting baited into a silly argument on a campaign page isn’t a good look. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, he was baited by a deluded boy scout. Can we get rid of both of them? UncleKrampus (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That reminds me of a time I was drinking with some communists at a hole-in-the-wall bar in Aix-en-Provence. I wasn't sure whether those guys wanted to murder me or not, but I relaxed when they told old war stories and I pretended to be interested. One of them said he had escaped from a work camp in 1944, and they sent a whole platoon after him with German shepherds that had not eaten that month. And when they finally caught him and two other guys they put them against the cement wall of an old gas house, standing in an old pool of horse piss, and the communist said, "Ich glaube, ich werde scheißen." The soldiers laughed and decided to bring them back to camp instead. A sense of humor is important!UncleKrampus (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you think those commies wanted to murder you? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

RWRW

• Endorsements

1. Was a very good mod. Also, while he doesn't edit the main space very often, I think having him as a mod is a good way to fight group think. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
2. What Gee said. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. RWRW performed well as a moderator before. Despite our political differences, he is someone whom I can work with. Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Let the poacher turn gamekeeper once more. Spud (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
5. As a feminist,I believe that this man deserves nothing from me. Still..I do. ^{— Unsigned, by: UncleKrampus / talk / contribs}
6. Christopher (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Was a good mod in the past, although I’m mildly concerned about whether he’ll be more active here if elected. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
8. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Has been a good balancing "religious angel on the shoulder of a predominantly-atheistic site" for a long time. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 06:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
10. ShabiDOO 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements

1. Never mind...UncleKrampus (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

KarmaPolice

• Endorsements

1. Intelligent and level-headed dude. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
2. This fucken guy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
3. If we are worried about how mods handle politically charged flame wars next year then there is pretty much no better candidate. KarmaPolice has been a constant presence in our political discussions for a while and even though he hardly holds back his opinion I cannot remember him losing his temper over it. Definitely going near the top of the ballot.-Flandres (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Level-headed, a good choice. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
5. ShabiDOO 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Anti-endorsements