RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive4

For the full list of the July 2012 nominees (current election) see here.

Discussion of nominees

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

Campaigning

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

Ace McWicked

Proven results, sexy times. Vote Ace. Ace^Moderator 04:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Acemodlove.jpg

Vote Ace..for sexy times

File:Modatwork.jpg

Ace moderating

AD

Vote for me if you think I've done a good job.--^talk 07:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't vote for AD, you're just wrong. ^sshole 13:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to endorse the candidate known as "AD".--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

AD seems remarkably sane. Copperhead^Hisssssss 01:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy Frankinson

Vote for me! I'm pretty knowledgeable on physics, math, and astrophysics, so I'd be able to keep an eye on those pages and the debates on those pages and stuff. I've also moderated several site over a timespan of around 2 years so I'm very experienced, even though I am relatively new to RationalWiki. Andy Frankinson (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Blue

File:Blue election.jpg

Peace. Justice. Blue.

fnord Because I'm worth it. Blue (pester) 02:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Gawd you are full of yourself, you incompetent loser. ħuman 02:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You also deleted my signed comment. Brilliant move. I don't even... Go coop yourself. ħuman 02:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please calm down, I didn't mean to delete your comment. Blue (is useful) 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Loser"? She has won two moderator elections in a row. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps he misspelled "looser", since she's clearly not so wound up as he is right now. --Kels (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Stay classy, Human. You sanctimonious git. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dick Turpis

My last two statements basically still hold, I guess. If you want someone who'll make decisions based on logic rather than emotion, vote for me. I'm the guy without an axe to grind - without any real allegiances, who'll look at conflicts based on the issues, not the people involved. I try to stand up for the little guy, and make sure what few rules we have apply to everyone. I have to admit I didn't do a shitload as moderator during my tenure, but we had a relatively low conflict six months; I'd love to be able to take credit for that, but I don't see how I can. Anyway, my priority as moderator will be to try to resolve disputes by getting both sides to put aside the bullshit and act like adults, hopefully resolving them before it gets to the point where we have to go through the hassle of engaging our lengthy resolution process which no one ever seems to cherish, and without having to block/ban/promote anyone. I realize this won't always work, but it's a goal. DickTurpis (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Genghis Khant

LArron

I've never been much involved in the politics of our little community and I think I should try to do more. My outlook may be little bit more conservative than our average, and my thoughts on the conserving of topics can be read here. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX

My platform remains the same as always: I think the moderators need to be proactive in handling disputes (i.e., actually do their job), but recognize that their job is to defuse conflicts rather than advance an agenda.

With regard to recent events, I agree with this remark of Goonie's commending AD for his fine work in handling the Nutty Roux-Brxbrx dispute. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mikal

Hi there, I'm mikal. Sure i'm newish, but sometimes what you need is newer blood. I have a simple philosophy for me as "Mikal the Mod" which consists of "focus on resolving conflicts and HCM in a way that is best for all parties (when this is possible) and the wiki as a whole" and in general just wanting to help keep the wiki's community together. Beyond that I don't have any real goals; I just want to help RW as a community and would be glad to serve as a moderator. --il'Dictator Mikal 07:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note what I said to Maratrean. It applies here too. --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You could be saying to Ace as well, who also put himself on the list. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But yes, a lot of the time when people put themselves on a list they aren't the best/right/whatever word you wanna use and probably shouldn't be doing that job, but that isn't all the time. Writing those people off just because they decided they shouldn't wait for somebody else to think they would do a good job is unfair, no? --il'Dictator Mikal 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, given the nature of the job, it's probably good people WANT to do it, as long as they are clear why they want to do it. --GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mik. Sophie^{because liberals} 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently people don't like it when that happens?

You heard the man. Democracy: hop to it!

In all seriousness, however, Mikal has demonstrated that he is capable of listening to reason, does not take sides in conflicts for entirely ideological reasons, and is frankly ridiculously apologetic. All useful traits for a moderator, and there are far worse choices you could vote for.

Mikalos209: your token sober moderator for 2012. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 05:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony

I'm of the opinion that moderators should only intervene in instances where this site's members can't or won't fix a situation: massive HCM's and continuous conflicts between the same couple users for example. I am of the opinion that the moderation process should be a last resort for conflicts not easily handled but the mob and nothing more, nothing less. I guess you could summarize my approach as a "light touch" approach. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sophie

Manifesto here

All shall love me and despair!

As a moderator I will be totally awesome. That is all. Sophie^{because liberals} 09:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Ace already has the awesome vote sown up. Can't you be our fabulous mod? --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How about gorgeous? Sophie^{because liberals} 12:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that vote was going to Blue, but as you asked so nicely... --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sterile

The only svg campaign poster.

sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 03:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot

I like it here. I hate fights. I don't think mods being part of petty fights helps anything; I think it only escalates the situation. That said, I will mod what the mob requests. I like to squash edit wars too. even my own. heh. --GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd make you a poster but my art skills are nil. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Kels

Fnord. --Kels (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Human

Are you serious? My platform is "if you liked the first three years of RW and what we built together, vote for me." If you preferred the driving off of many long-time editors, and the rule-making and -enforcing tendencies of the last two years, see you on the flipside, kids. Love you all, though. Addendum: my platform also includes dropping this farce entirely. "I don't even..." and introductory hate mail to this group is an embarrassment to the wiki. ħuman 02:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is somebody whose entire reason for being on the wiki is "I hate authoritarianism"... unless you disagree with him, of course. Then we see the biggest authoritarian arsehole around. In addition, his comments made on the brxbrx coop matter, show that Human has absolutely none of the requirements needed to be a moderator. His attitude is essentially 'agree with me, or you're a cunt.' As we can see from the following:

• AD, you are a loser. Get over it, delete and retract, and go crawl into whatever hole you came out of.
• You are a fucking time wasting cunt. ħumanUser talk:Human 6:01 am, 2 June 2012, Saturday (14 days ago) (UTC+2) (to AD)
• Here we have this nasty little fuck, this ex-ED troll, who when criticized or cooped ignores all admonishments, laughs it off, "amusingly enough" de-syspops himself in the middle of his own cooping, and is a basically useless person on this site. So Nutty Roux is sick of this asshole's shit for the umpteenth time and blocks him. Blue, ever the sanctimonious piece of trash, gently defends Nutty by calling him "less worse" than the useless Brx, then votes to sanction Nutty for something she fucking undid herself anyway. You people are nuts. This place was so much better before May 2011, and you know it. ħumanUser talk:Human 6:37 am, 2 June 2012, Saturday (14 days ago) (UTC+2)
• Failure to do what??? This whole thing is utterly silly. To quote Frazier, "This can be undone with one click of a mouse". You people are so overreacting it's embarrassing. Can I say, "this place has no rules, only guidelines"? Those who want hard and fast rules are actually potential topics for the "authoritarianism" aspect of our mission. And don't tempt me to write about it. ħumanUser talk:Human 4:49 am, 2 June 2012, Saturday (14 days ago) (UTC+2)
• And yet this cesspit "voted" to permanently remove Marcus Cicero from the site, for far lesser, and far more interesting crimes. I agree, Brx shoudl have a right to edit. As should EVERYONE ELSE. A right to be a sysop, given his vile language as recorded by Blue above? Less so. But that is not what this is about. This is about Nutty doing something that could be and was undone by the click of a mouse by others. I call this a trivial lynching of the intelligent by the stupid and scared. ħumanUser talk:Human 5:56 am, 2 June 2012, Saturday (14 days ago) (UTC+2)
• MC was "banned" by the authoritarian right wing of this site. They were wrong. They were nasty and hateful. Did Nutty do something wrong? Perhaps, barely. It took two days for people to give a shit enough to unblock Brx. That speaks volumes. ħumanUser talk:Human 4:54 am, 3 June 2012, Sunday (13 days ago) (UTC+2)
• Brx, shut the fuck up, you are wrong. MC was a genius who poked people in a brilliant way, and the morons he irritated responded in a most embarrassing way. If there was a vote to block you forever I would have a really hard time sticking to my principles. But I would. You only kiss ass and spew hate. ħumanUser talk:Human 4:54 am, 3 June 2012, Sunday (13 days ago) (UTC+2)

This is a man who holds grudges - as seen from his comments about AD and Blue and his frequent assertions that he's going to sue me. By the way, Terry K was banned from RW for issuing very specific legal threats.

Why vote for somebody who wants to undo all the good that's been done in the past? Who can't seem to grasp that RW is no longer a little clique of 20 or so like-minded people? Not to mention one who thinks RW is a "cesspit" staffed by an "authoritarian right wing" and that MC was a "genius." Being a moderator is about cooperation, not trying to enforce your will and then sulking like a little bitch when you don't get your way. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

By "This is a man who holds grudges," do you mean you or Human? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 14:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I just call it as I see it. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm no oing to have Trent being alleged to be responsible for some of the irresponsible things some do here. It's not his obligation under federal law. It was never my with to have to pay thousands for a retainer to a legel ethics lawyer to defend even a frivolous ethics charge that wuold have been as complicated and incoherent as we all remember making things. Huw and Psy are blowing smoke. Nothing more. Ken DeNyer is the who needs to get sued if he continues a course of action he has been going back to years.

We're all holing gruges. Your beef with Human has taken on life of its own. Thankfully it draw the kind of substance free and irrelevant hokum we get when Brxbrx or UHM an I get in the same room. We each obviously have our own ideas about being right, but I don't see how any of that carries over to being able to exercise indepenent judgment in the interest of the site. If think Huw doesn't care about RW when he's made a years long evotion that few even approach, you take some aderall an get business looking at his edit history. ^{— Unsigned, by: user:Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}

Fuck me, Nutty. Are you drunk or just editing on your wristwatch?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm on pain medication for a recent injury. Sorry about that. 20:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't read what I wrote, that's your lookout. But nothing Human has done in the quotes above and even the comments he has made about Blue indicate that he is fit to act as a moderator on this site. He is a boor at best and an uncouth cunt at worst - especially when he doesn't get his way. This is not a person who should be getting involved in solving problems - he made that very clear in your coop case. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I suppose a more relevant question is, what has Mr. Man accomplished in the past year in his capacity as moderator. Has he worked to prevent HCM from getting out of hand? Has he made steps to bring back the "golden era" of three years ago as was his campaign promise? Has he successfully moderated anything? Surely he has a record to run on now, so it would be interesting to hear him present it. --Kels (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has much of a record to run on, as mods don't tend to do much very visible & the role is still pretty vague. Last time around there was some talk about establish mod guidelines & remit, but nothing has materialised. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It also implies that a moderator must be somewhat heavy handed, which isn't a given. And what Weaseloid said is true: Given that the moderator role is so ill-defined, how can anyone tell how effective someone is? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's only ill-defined because you and yours kept throwing fits at the thought of even the slightest ability. Reminds me of last night's Jon Stewart bit, where he said it must be fun to be a Republican, as you get to break things and then complain that they don't work.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

One can objectively look up what the role of a mod is, even without using an appeal to character. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 18:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why it would have to be heavy-handed. The ideal, I would imagine, would be to defuse conflicts before they got to full-blown HCM, with cooping and hurt feelings and such. Certainly that would be a more common and important activity than blocking/banning and passing judgement. Surely you've seen people moderate that way elsewhere? --Kels (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So you can blame one moderator (and not the other six) for not preventing a HCM? I'd like to see that defended. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh? When did I say that? I'd appreciate a quote, please. --Kels (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sterile, the issue is not that Human doesn't prevent HCM, the issue is that he causes it and makes it worst. He's the opposite of a moderator.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pot? Kettle? Black? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 22:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not addressing that except to say that I am not running for moderator.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuck Brx, you don't know when to shut the fuck up do you? Awareness failure. Ace^Moderator 00:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the unending problems with "heavy hand" or even just 'moderating" is that so often Mods are asked to step in between two children having a spitting context. I don't and never have agreed with Brx or Blue that a mod should be some super user who steps in to corral the children. A mod is there to help if things get fully out of hand, if the wiki at large is effected (edit wars) or if the mob has said "enough, this stops now, in this manner". I disagree and always have that mods should act unilaterally beyond just freezing pages - cause we are not judges and there's been no jury. When someone says "human is a X" or "Blue is a Z", a mod does not and cannot know the whole story. To expect them to intervene unilaterally means we are either *guessing* at who is right, or we are taking sides. Neither of which is a good way to run a site, and the reason we have votes - effective or ineffective as they are. It's not a matter of being "illdefined", it's a very serious limitation of the internet, and not having a good system of judge and jury in place, rather than "whine whine so-and-so is acting like a jerk, ban him". (that is to say, there are ALWAYS two sides to that prior statement, and we only tend to hear one - whoever whines the loudest).GodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 18:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (edit con)

All I'm saying is it's one thing to endorse another person. It's far another to actively campaign against someone. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 04:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Weaseloid

Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You're slaying me with tiny adorable furry cute animals! ASFJklsda; Blue (pester) 02:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Cast off the bipedal overlords! Copperhead^Hisssssss 21:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This user is an acolyte of the ferret overlords

--- ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess I should say something here. I've been a mod before & don't think I did a bad job of it, although I don't think I behaved much differently than I do as a non-mod. That's kindof in the nature of the role. I have some reservations about the noderator system as-is, but don't think it's necessarily a write-off. I would welcome some clearer guidelines (not strict rules) on the mod remit & rights, the most important of which (as I've said all along) is that they shouldn't make summary judgements; any actions against a user should be either short-term restriction to diffuse a situation when really necessary (like stopping an edit war in its tracks) or else the result of a community decision (i.e. Chicken Coop or equivalent). That said, it's pretty clear that the Coop gets way overused for pursuing petty grievances & inflating minor incidents out of proportion, so I think we should more readily dismiss the frivolous cases & move on, rather than committing ourselves to a two-week vote every time as has become customary. I don't like the level of factionalism within the community that's been very noticeable the last year or two. I like pretty much all the regular users here, but there's a tendancy for opinions on site management issues to be polarised & users to antagonise each other over this stuff. Unfortunately there are also various personal grudges between some users that keep resurfacing long after everyone else is sick of hearing about them. We should try to ignore this stuff (unless it gets out of hand) rather than getting caught up in it & taking sides. In most of these conflicts there's fault on both sides, so we should be looking for compromises. I don't like seeing users banned unless absolutely necessary, or hounded offsite, told to leave etc. This is not in the spirit of moderation. I guess that about covers most of it. Vote Weaseloid. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If I were blocked, would you unblock me? Would you restore my rights if they were removed? Call me a special interest--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? Did no one respond to your email request so now you have to bother potential moderators? You are not a special interest. Ace^Moderator 23:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand what I'm talking about. I am using the term special interest in the political sense. It's a joke. Look it up, maybe it'll make sense.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I don't understand what you talking about. You seem to be having paranoid fits about being permanently blocked which is why you circulated that email and are now prostituting yourself to potential moderators. Ace^Moderator 23:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dang it. I"m with blue. only way I'd vote for someone over you is if they had cute cats in their propaganda.GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 23:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dumpling

...Erm. Hi. This...is Dumpling. Some of you may know me...and others are probably like: "Who are you?" Yeah. I'm not...really a big deal on this wiki. But, for some odd reason, I've been nominated? Anyways---Long speech short.

I could care less as to who likes who; who doesn't like who; I'm better than you nonsense.

The purpose of the wiki is to inform. As a community of editors, the wiki should grow off the contributions, not the bickering. Whining and complaining is not necessary. Bitching and groaning even less so. Fair opinions and justifiable actions are best. I treat people with respect, tolerable amounts of patience, and the right amount of kindness. That is how I treat others. And that is how I want to be treated.

Simple as that.

--Dumpling (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nutty Roux

The moderator role is a pointless farce. Its very existence and all the overreaching and posturing some of these clowns have done in re-imagining it as some kind of leadership position draws the worst out in people during times of conflict and shows the sharp divide between old and new. I have very little interest in doing anything but helping the RWF and don't look at RW for days at a time, so you'll see me basically doing nothing but monitoring whichever paper pushing authoritarians get elected. And cleaning up their messes if I have to, as I've wasted time doing before. A vote for me is a vote for the lightest touch possible - none, if I can get way with it. 02:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidacies

Bootmii

Tired of the same old editing and reading pages? Well, I'm going to put some GAMES on this wiki. We already have Nomic, right? But soon, there'll be more GAMES to choose from, like Yahtzee and Video Poker! The mob needs more FUN, so vote Bootmii!Bootmii(Nomic) 06:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with moderation? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ZackMartin

I am opposed to mobocracy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? How will you oppose it as a moderator? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In whatever way I can. I think, if someone campaigns on a particular viewpoint, and is elected - the formal powers of the moderator position are likely insufficient to put that viewpoint into practice. However, the very fact that they have been elected shows a reasonable chunk of people are willing to give that viewpoint their endorsement, and that in itself means something. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a saying that the very act of wanting to be a politician should automatically disqualify that person from being a politician. I feel the same applies to people who nominate themselves for positions. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What about people who accept nominations? Aren't they still confirming that they want to be a moderator? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some have the grace to accept reluctantly. Nominating yourself is like giving yourself a high-five. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some might accept with genuine reluctance out of a sense of duty or whatever (although none of the candidates so far appear to have done so), but that has nothing to do with "grace". As for people having the grace, modesty, whatever, to accept faux-reluctantly, why should that be commendable? We have a system that allows people to nominate themselves or others, and there's no requirement for the nomination to be seconded. If you want to pick on people for "wanting it too much", why not focus on the ones who post epic campaign statements and design posters for their candidacy, not single out a couple of people just because they happened to self-nominate. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no user named Maratrean on this wiki. Can we strike the nomination? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 14:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

*meow* could I perhaps just strike Maratrean himself ? Terror Trinka (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought more about it and decided to withdraw my nomination. I endorse Blue, DickTurpis and ListenerX. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, nominated by Brx and endorsed by Maratrean. Can we just call this election over and declare me the sole winner? DickTurpis (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't help it you're such a swell guy! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I promise to campaign against you if you archive your talk page, Dick. That'll help your chances fo sho--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)