Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election are completed. Voting will commence shortly.

RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive7

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion of nominees[edit]

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

Due to PacWalker's generally unobservant nature (sorry!) and a lack of correction by later editors, this section seems to have been replaced by #Noisy interruption by your audience (below), as well as questions and responses inserted after candidates' statements in the usual talk page manner.

Campaigning[edit]

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

142.124.55.236[edit]

The sole platform I'm running on is that I want mod powers to turn myself into a ninja. For reasons! (Wondering how serious I am? Remember, this is effectively an election promise!) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

(A technical note from me: this is in fact a registered user, so there is no technical difficulty there, despite appearances of bonbon status) WalkerWalkerWalker 03:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Registered user or not, the BoN is a slavish follower, not a leader. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
That's what they want you to think! (Wait, I shouldn't have said that.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
„They“ seem to be correct, whatever the intentions. BoN usually turns up as Ms. M's lapdog. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you don't know the rules well enough to be trusted. User pages are communal property. I learned that one way back. But you seem to regard yourself as special. You can archive, you can have drop-downs for good housekeeping, but you are not allowed to hide. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
That is not true. Trolling, spam and other general detritus can be deleted from user talk pages. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie[edit]

I've been here an awful long time, have a strong love for the community and believe that the reluctant and prodigious use of extra wiki-powers is sometimes necessary to get any community past occasionally-unavoidable crises. If elected, I will use the powers that come with the job only if nothing else seems to be stopping a slide into HCM. But, generally speaking, talking is the best way to deal with problems, and I'm around enough to actually talk to people and help them maybe find a solution to whatever issues are going down. Also, while I have had tendentious interactions with a couple of regular users over the past months, as much my fault as anyone else's, I promise that if elected to never use my Mod powers as a weapon in any personal dispute/grudge match. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Several questions: 1. Do you feel it is appropriate for sysops and moderators to tell other administrators to "Go fuck yourself?" (You did that to 142BoN earlier today.) 2. Do you feel it is appropriate to revert substantial portions of an established article because you have decided you "will not allow" what the majority has worked out to appear in an article? (You did that earlier today.) 3. Do you feel users should be able to delete -- and move to an obscure forum-- significant, non-trollish portions of an article's talk page that directly pertain to what the community has discussed about the article's contents? (You did that last night.) 4. Do you feel moderators should discipline based on whether they like a user or not? (Earlier today you glibly told me to seek out a moderator who doesn't like you rather than addressing your behavior with one who presumably does, indicating your confidence that you are immune from significant consequences.) In my view, the community has the right to know your answers to these questions given your candidacy. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1. Sure. 2. Yes. 3. Yup. 4. That's gonna happen. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing my candidacy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Selected endorsements[edit]

  • David Gerard can't fucking stand me, but he knows how the wiki works, is generally cool, and gets stuff done.
  • Paravant cares about the place and it shows.
  • Fuzzy gets it wrong sometimes, but he cares.
  • Goonie. Because he's Goonie.
  • Stabby. Older than dirt, in wiki-time.
  • Sanderson. Does good work.

Plus one vote for me makes seven. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You know that only 4 mods will be elected right? SolPyre (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
No. No I did not know that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Alec Sanderson[edit]

To answer the noisy interruption, I believe moderating action is advisable when the Recent Changes signal/noise ratio degrades to an unacceptable level. Other criteria may also apply. The specifics of what is an unacceptable noise level are subject to change, and most likely will not be made public. That said, least moderation is best moderation. Goonie, Paravant, Aging Hippie, Bicycle Wheel, DG, and a few others have track records of working the wiki with a constructive attitude. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch[edit]

I'm 'anna turn myself into a ninja (good idea, 142!!) and shoot a rasengan up the ass of try to get David to update the Wiki software of RW, so we can have all these cool things such as SSL, mobile view, tagging and, what's more important, bug fixes.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

David, from his cave in the wilderness: NO UPDATES WILL HAPPEN. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Eh, at's just jolly old England. Fairly similar I do s'pose. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We need more Arisboch! We need more people who can curse in German, Russian and (third language I forgot about) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Arabic, and being a potty mouth is not cute or amusing. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Where do you get Arisboch speaking Arabic from? Also: Who ever fucking said that swearing sounds bad? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Add Polish to the list. Being a potty mouth to attract attention is nothing like good honest swearing, beeyutch. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The only cursing i;m impressed with anymore is мат --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
... just as long as you don't put your хуй в чай. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh my god, whoever would want to injure his хуй like that or to waste that wonderful drink called чай?! :D But siriusly seriously, I can only curse passably in three languages: Russian, English and German. In Arabic, Spanish, Hebrew, Polish, Japanese, Italian and French I know only a few cursewords and in most cases not even whole phrases, so I can not really curse in these languages, but pepper my sentences in German, Russian and English with a few exotic words, nothing more.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
We gotta meet up with a good bottle of Rum some time and I'm gonna teach you some Spanish swear words :-P Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That'd be noice. Is it true, that Mexican Spanish is especially suited for cursing?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mexican Spanish is not the one I know the most slang in, but given that it's slang is the most prevalent in Hollywood (to the point that almost all Latinos automatically speak - rather distinctive - Mexican slang, even if they're supposed to be from - say - Colombia), you could certainly get this impression. But other Spanish styles also got their swear words - Argentinian has it down to an art form calling everybody "boludo" (from "bolas" = balls) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
In Mexican Spanish, there is a gesture, where you hold down your index finger with your thumb and put our the rest of the fingers. It is, IIRC, a reference to the balls, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Is cursing in many languages a plus? I can curse in four and am working on the fifth and sixth. If I weren't so lazy, I'd nominate myself by that criterion. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You guys, Arisboch and Avenger, if I visit a country of your choice, will there be rum - or preferably beer - for me too? I can teach you to curse in two languages neither of you knows. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you go to the super market of any more or less developed country, you will see some rum and beer there, it's just that I'm not enough of a connoisseur of either rum or beer (I don't drink beer) to point you to rum, which is nice to drink and away from rum, which isn't.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of the particular liquor, but of what could be an interesting symposium. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well sure. Why not? For beer, I happen to have at the very least two connoisseurs who are related to me. And for rum, I think I can trust myself in a pinch. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ChrisAmiss[edit]

If elected, I will prevent the evildoers from attacking our wiki and threatening our national security. Remember, you're either with me or with the (wiki)terrorists. In seriousness, given that I am knowledgeable on areas concerning the Middle East and not much more than that, I feel I can be impartial and keep conversations on alternative subjects constructive and not destructive/veering off topic. I don't have much time on my hands and I lead the life of a boring college student, so I have nothing to lose. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am knowledgeable on areas concerning the Middle East- Chris Amiss Do You Believe That? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a number of magnitudes truer for Chris than it is for you, Avenger. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Can we please leave this shit out of here |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Up and down and all around 22:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Movenger's law; I'm sure Mona will show up shortly since the other half is already here in this discussion. WalkerWalkerWalker 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It literally makes me ill to have my name mixed with that person's. In any event, the lack of rules that actually direct what is and is not permitted, combined with the fact that some sysops may do things that others may not, all leaves me very uncertain that this site can or should attract smart people with: writing skills, knowledge and the ability to source their claims. Sites everywhere that host comments sections -- the successful ones that anyone wants to read -- do not permit crapflooding and trolling that disrupts intelligent and productive discussion. Here, anyone who joins is permitted to edit as they will, however much, and entirely regardless of the bad faith of their editing; they merely need to avoid anything that might cause sysops to say they are "edit warring." That this all is accepted here as normal -- even desired ("I pledge fuck little modding!) -- is most, most unfortunate. It's inimical to a quality work product that attracts those who can and would stay long enough to create it.---Mona- (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
all leaves me very uncertain that this site can or should attract smart people with- -Mona- Oh, it didn't, that's why you're here :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Mods who go around doing more than the bare minimum modding are counter to the RW-concept of the community being the primary decision maker for the wiki, not a small group of people, and this is reflected in the mod description page. That I used a heavy hand trying to find a solution to the I-P debate should not be taken as the standard but a choice I made at my discretion as a mod, which I feel was justified if imperfectly executed. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I know. That's how it is here and how the vast majority want it. Nevertheless, all that I wrote above remains true.---Mona- (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
People with authority and agendas have historically not worked out well on this wiki - in particular when conflicting agendas both get power - See every single thing that led to the downfall of the crat' system and much of the early issues with the mod system. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have extensive experience moderating sites, going back to the days of CompuServe. The combination of amorphous rules, a tolerance of troll flooding, and the group permitting some to do what others may not, it is all a recipe for a poorly functioning site. And if work product is desired to come from the situation, quality and quantity are going to suffer. Smart and reasonable people will not operate in such an environment. You get and keep that for which you make a pleasing environment.---Mona- (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have extensive experience moderating sites, going back to the days of CompuServe.- -Mona- Oh my, Mona is brandishing her e-penor after boasting, how well she can pull sources out of her ass come up with sources even she won't believe to be true.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
So get the community to make votes - the mods lack the uthority to make such sweeping changes. As I mentioned above, the primary authority on the wiki is the community, not trent, the board or mods. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona you're a crack up sometimes. Tielec01 (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, Paravant, not me. I'm not leading such a charge. As you can see, Tielec considers me a "crack up." That will be the view of the vast majority. Why, you have one user who has repeatedly said he doesn't do research. He can't and doesn't source anything. But the community esteems him. He's fun, you see; a real "crack up." No, my only purpose here is to state the problem(s). Of course, that most will not see any of it as problem(s) at all, is inherent in the problem(s). ---Mona- (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh Mona, is your cruelty so refined that you would no longer allow us to wallow in the cast off pearls of your wisdom? Tielec01 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Armchair Activism may be fun but it isn't very useful. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you both think I'm talking about only myself. I'm not. But as I said, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, much less the priorities and preferences here. Adding only, this site is supposed to be armchair activist-- countering woo. Well written and documented articles that can be cited by readers. Whether those articles -- or those not concerned with woo -- the priority is fun and not quality work and writers. Or rules that can sensibly guide and which bind all. ---Mona- (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this got derailed quickly. But back to my campaign, aside from the Middle East, I don't have a specific or vested interest in much of anything else, so I confidently feel I can view things from the sidelines as a mod and not be too much of an interventionist as Paravant pointed out, only intervening when absolutely necessary if discussions veer off from a constructive exchange. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"Those issues" seem to derail just about everything here. So don't be surprised. Just be thankful you are not also emotionally invested in My Little Pony.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
ChrisAmiss, do you support deleting entire sections of someone's talk page without their consent because you think it is vitriolic? Because if you do, you won't have my vote. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
All of those actions are well within the remit of a Sysop to do, let alone a moderator, and have established precedent on the wiki. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. If it's getting vitrolic, you try to mediate it first. And if it gets unreasonable on one or both sides, block the persons temporarily. I don't recommend permanent bans because everyonebhas something to contribute and it would seem to resemble too much of censorship to do so. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If ever there was a suitable User Name his is it. Chris is amiss, and can't be trusted to weigh things cooly. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What makes you say that? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Just my natural cruelty, idiocy or any other word you'd care to throw at me. And of course, a reading of your contributions. But you should be grateful. According to my calculations, insofar as my opinions mean anything, I should gain you some votes by being against, and I'm not eligible to vote. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Well, I make clear in what I said above that I have a vested interest in the ME, primarily IP even if one side perceives it as unbalanced. My protocol has always been to quote academic books or independent human rights orgs on the subject rather than a partisan blog like EI which makes me as impartial as I can get even if someone doesn't like my opinion. But as far as other topics go, I do not have a vested interest in them and I'm mostly busy with college work, so I feel I can moderate by intervening as less as possible. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I just had a look at RW today after a couple of day's absence. I too have to study. It's much more fun than RW. Enjoy college. I hope you're studying something worthwhile - which can be most anything except postmodernism of any kind and any sub-sub-sub-subfield of almost anything except mathematics and the natural sciences. The microhistory of cheesemaking in 15. century Florence is an example of the latter. My opinion, of course. Vested interests are a minus no matter what they are about. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser[edit]

As a true regressive, I pledge to use my powers to create a world no one wants. I will ban guns for everyone but criminals, ban marriage except between two people that hate each other, and raise your cable bills. Because all politicians break campaign promises anyway, so you might as well be happy when they do. CorruptUser (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

All those things sound great! I don't watch cable anyways. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:59, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
If politicians break promises, then it looks like the $100 cable bill is going down down down South! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! Amen! 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You are against Ska? Boo! Hiss! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I only like third wave Ska. I dislike Bob Marley's politics and I have no sympathy for people that through their own excessive stubbornness end up killing themselves, so that kind of poisons the music for me. But I grew up with No Doubt, Sublime, and like Pepper and The Dirty Heads, etc, so it's not that simple.
Anyway, you better vote for me or you'll be swimming with the fishes
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

. CorruptUser (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
But Bob Marley is Reggae, not ska... Anyway, I listen to this - good music for cycling back in the day... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fat Aardvark[edit]

My dear friends. Do you want to transform this wiki? Do you think this wikis bizarre obsession with goats should be replaced with an obsession with aardvarks? Then I am the person who will make that happen! Together we will make a rational wiki worth editing. Together we will launch an invasion of the English Wikipedia and oust the evil ArbCom, and replace them with a grand council of Aardvark Elders. --Fat Aardvark (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Protest. Aardvark sounds too much like armadillo and those are remarkably stupid animals. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Shame on you for insulting the exalted armadillo! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:59, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato[edit]

Actual mod goals:

  1. End ideological blocking: Anyone who comes to RW with an ideological bias against ours will somehow get blocked for offenses that wouldn't be banworthy for likeminded contributors (and if not blocked, unilaterally binned or reverted). Look at how many of the pro-Gamergate contributors survived, how few MRAs stick around, or how few creationists we argue with. Even if you think someone's ideology is utterly offensive horseshit, censorship doesn't improve the situation. Taking their arguments and rebutting them on-page makes our pages stronger -- we should welcome, not harass, opponents.
  2. Fix the coop: If we're gonna be a mobocracy, we gotta do it with less HCM and with more sticking power. A few changes I'd like to see: [1] To stop stupid, frivolous coops: All coop cases must begin in fixed format with (a) a quote from policy, (b) a linked/quoted violation of policy by the user in question, and (c) a proposed punishment with a stated duration. [2] To stop user rights warring: A mod should (a) place a banner template on the top of user talk pages after that user has been demoted/promoted by coop order and (b) sysoprevoke sysops who've been revoked.

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's one for the campaign trail[edit]

FCP Election Poster.png Four more years! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The marching shoe of the state, forever roll-stepping[edit]

First! FuzzyCatPotato of the Prepossessing Oxides (talk/stalk) 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So much discussion that it hurts[edit]

Boo! We need less rules and more groupthink! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Fewer rules, and less groupthink! (also more pedantry) CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Good luck getting a more efficient and bureaucratic styled coop through. | Also, neither of those require you to be a mod, who's only job is to contain out of control fighting, not run the wiki and make policy. What will you do about YOUR MOD JOB fuzzy, I don't want irrelevant policy proposals, I want ISSUES. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Being mod makes 'em stick. Sysoprevoke requires mod, and mod job is to mediate in sysop disputes like this. Otherwise you're just a fighter in the user rights war. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Being a mod won't make your case to get a change in wiki proceedings any more likely to happen, however. So in this event, you're just as likely to get the changes voted in, and so you should focus more on what as a mod you'd do, not what as a sysop you already can do. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm using it as an uncountable noun, of course. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
>implying... actually there is no good way to count all the quasi-rules. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I like your point 2 Fuzzy. What that requires though is a complete set of policy pages. Those are not in a particularly good state and require significant work. Whilst that is not specifically mod-related, you might wish to make that part of your platform.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The lack of a policy is a feature. I'd much rather see an as short of a policy as possible; in fact, I think we might not need a policy at all... "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, I think your view is not uncommon here.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The less explicit policy and explicit rules we have, the more room we have to function. Though it may not be entirely conductive to our lofty goals, it gives us the freedom to act as we need instead of having to work in one specific way and hoping it doesn't fuck up. That was one of the criticisms of the AFD process when it was implemented, in that it made the deletion discussion incredibly rigid and closed to discussion and compromise, and I see much of the same thing happening to our conflict resolution system as well if Fuzzys system as is gets put in. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Function is good. The mob not really having much of a clue as to how that function should be applied is not.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Getting the coop to work correctly/better is indeed a good goal - attempting to do it by making the process rigid is not going to solve conflict. As well, the coop is not just for people who break policy, as I stated when I took the IP to the coop the jurisdiction to do so was covered by the big bolded part in the first portion of the page. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think my proposal would do that; the issue is that right now, both the violation, the punishment, and the voting are unclear. (And what use is directionless "function"?) There's plenty of room to discuss in a system of straight up or down voting; the goat section on AFD votes is often as long as the voting sections. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes starting the discussion right away with "lets vote on this" is not the best solution, and yet that's what rigid "input x output y" systems create. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence is actually a good example of this. Most people didn't support keeping it in its current form, but that is what it looks like if you "add up the votes"... Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@P: We could just have a discussion section before voting begins, then. Nobody said voting had to start immediately, just that it has to be truly binary.
@CS: My problem with the AFD system is that "merge", "rename", or "rewrite" are often the best options, yet get no section of votes. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
So whats the difference between the current version and your version, beyond having a not entirely accurate for the page insert x get y template?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
A formal complaint, formal voting, and formal punishment. The bajillion fights over Ryulong's rights are a result of not doing so. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That won't accomplish anything like what you want it to accomplish, and it STILL changes the role of the coop from generic community resolution center into policy violation center, of which it is not.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Won't it? Sysop revoking is quite final, and posting that info on talkpages makes it easy to tell what's up. Moreover, the CC is pretty explicit that its purpose is exactly to do policy violation and not community complaints. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest you reread the CC's page again before going off on suggesting changes to it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Mm, I see the parts where it talks about community issues. But the emphasis on administrative abuse and "unresolvable issues" seems to support a more sysop-related coop. (Which it obviously has been dominated by.) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
And yet policy violation and admin abuse is still not its only purpose, so your proposed template is still off. In a case where users are having an unending fight which is getting out of control, and neither is in the wrong according to policy, how do we get a community solution if I cannot bring it to the page meant to resolve such an issue due to the lack of policy violation OR any actual solution to the issue? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Better conflict resolution has to be a laudable aim. Leaving the coop aside for one moment and looking at wider considerations, this would be easier to achieve if RW had clearer and more comprehensive policy pages.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@P: An undending fight will either be about editwarring (which mods can fix) or user rights (which mods can fix). And if two years are just really noisy in disagreement, but not doing anything wrong, how is that bad?
@TRTWP: That might help, but said pages are pretty rarely used, so they've little impact. Forcing people to cite them might help, maybe. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Brx[edit]

Gooniepunk[edit]

I will hold all editors accountable for their actions; no editor deserves special privileges just because they feel they are entitled to them. That goes for N00Bs, Old Guard, BoNs, moderators, and everything in between. Most of all, RationalWiki should be a place that's fun to come to, and where everybody should feel bold enough to want to contribute to it without getting trampled over by other users. Gooniepunk (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My goodness. A candidate talking sense. You have my vote already. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
What about that time you gave Ace back his moderator privileges despite the fact that he used them to make himself sole moderator?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That was during the Great Ego Wars of 2011-2012. Everybody came out of that era looking shitty, including Ace, myself, Blue and Tyrannis. But for your information, it was also me who called Tyrannis on the phone that morning and got him to put a stop to it once I realized I fucked up. Also, that was a completely different time and era in RationalWiki's history that most of the current community here probably has no caring to revisit. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Firstly that was entirely of my own doing and nothing to do with Goonie and secondly how about that time everyone, and I mean everyone wanted you to fuck the fuck right off Brx because you're a despicable cunt with zero appeal to anyone and everything. I remember that pretty well. Have a good day. Acei9 21:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Campaign poster[edit]

Vote Gooniepunk.jpg

Vote Gooniepunk for moderator!! Gooniepunk (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Human[edit]

I believe the role of a modifier is to clarify, delineate, and enrich the verb or noun it modifies. That said, excess verbification or nounalising (and Commonwealth spelling idiosyncrasies) will be met with swift retribution.

Of course, all "rules" of grammar should be applied with moderation.

Slogan[edit]

"The Wiki is dead; long live the Wiki!"

General policy[edit]

I intend to ensure the tighter regulation, if not the outright dismantling, of financial institutions that are "too big to fail". Additionally, raise the minimum wage, restore income tax top brackets to Eisenhower era levels, and global warming is the biggest threat to our security.

And stop talking about her emails, ferpastassake!

Ikanreed[edit]

Nominally, the only reason you should choose me is you've accidentally mistaken me for a reasonable person in my time here. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

KOMF[edit]

I will attempt to make sure that no one is blocked simply for trying to talk to us about something, even if they are completely insane. I have seen several examples of this in the last month, but blocking for talking is Conservapedian in nature and goes against the block policy. I will also be able to moderate the vast majority of discussions without being biased, and if I feel that I cannot be neutral, I will ask another mod to moderate it. KOMF 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Noir LeSable[edit]

I'm planning on a largely hands-off strategy for modding -- stepping in when things get really nasty, but staying out of it for the most part. This largely includes cutting down on long-term blocks that are due to basic ideological differences or prolonged discussion on talk pages (as opposed to the more valid reasons of spamming/harassment/doxxing/continual vandalism/etc.).

On top of this, while I likely won't be able to enforce it mod-wise, I'd like to try to encourage a more "best intentions"-slanted approach to people who hold ideological differences coming here. I'm not saying we should feed obvious trolls/sealions/PRATT gallops/etc. or be accomodating to the abusive/deliberately inflammatory, but not to name any names, I think we can do better than just insult people for posting logically flawed beliefs (compared to, for example, giving a reason or reasons why their logic is incorrect, then insulting them).

Also, I most certainly will NOT pull a Greater Manchester Skeptics Society Meetup on all of you by ousting all the other mods once I get into power and turning the wiki into a soapbox for the evidence-iffy/pseudoscientific views I secretly hold. Nope. Not at all. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Narky Sawtooth[edit]

I know exactly what the wiki needs to stay healthy. A balanced breakfast. A balanced breakfast of goat-on-jerboa action!

NSFW RW goatse.png

Maybe too balanced. Hmmm.

On a more serious note, if I become moderator, I'll pretty much do what I did when I became sysop: Hold back and listen to input until I'm confident that I'm not making a mistake. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 07:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... If there were just two slots more, I reckon I'd actually have a chance. Voting is immune to my surefire get-mod-on-every-site technique.
Actually, on that note, I probably should have mentioned: I've got quite a bit of experience being a moderator for various things. I was always dedicated enough to ignore my own interests and weather abuse if it meant doing things right. I don't think that things would ever go as bad here as they did elsewhere, though. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 10:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

PacWalker[edit]

Elect PacWalker.png

I intend to moderate moderately *rimshot*: that is, I intend to go about my normal business unless like, a manure truck hits the fan. Unfortunately, that probably WILL happen around here, so when it does intend to:

  1. Encourage parties to sit down and talk with each other via talkpage, unless they have been already to no constructive effect, in which case I will encourage them to shut the fuck up and go do something else for a day or two, then come back and try again in a hopefully calmer state of mind.
  2. Encourage demobcratic resolution of content disputes, but with an understanding that it need not be simply one version against another, and knowing that articles may in certain cases have room for stuff: that is, in some cases, articles might be able to present the evidence one side wants to rub faces with and also that offered by the other side. Sometimes RW articles are not about black/white subjects.
  3. Encourage parties to engage completely with the other side's arguments, even if they think the errors are obvious.
  4. Offer links to good listening material, just because.
  5. Use the big mop as a temporary solution to overgrown wheel wars. There's an important word in that sentence, and it starts with temporary.

Additionally, while this isn't specifically part of my modding strategy, I believe there is such a thing as constructive derailment. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I had a time machine, I would frog baby Knitler. WalkerWalkerWalker 09:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Paravant[edit]

Much as I campaigned in the last two elections my goals amount to modding the least amount possible and when I do, following the pattern I established with the IP debate of first trying to force discussions, and then either bringing the issue to the community or using my judgement to try and find a solution if I feel the community doesn't need to get involved, should discussions not work out.

Wat else will I do with mod? Idk, polish my mod cape? Use my amazing mod powers to bake cookies none of you can have because I'm not paying shipping and handling? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I endorse this candidate. Paravant and I have not always got along, and will not again in the future, but it cannot be denied that they are basically the only mod that has performed the function in the last six months or longer. The best predictor of future performance is previous performance, and as far as I see it if we must have mods they should at least be active on the wiki. Tielec01 (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
But I thought liking the status quo is conservative and this here wiki is precisely not that...? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ten thousand years! Ten thousand years! SolPyre (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, whether I am eligible to vote, but much to everybody's surprise, I endorse Paravant. Not out of any hidden love for the guy, more like, the devil you know. And he's not altogether bad. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A new kind of election[edit]

Oh snap. The posters have come out. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Shock and Awe, people will remember that the first person to Poster was me, and any following poster users were merely copying me. Besides, the damn things exist, might as well use em. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 09:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Queex[edit]

Wielding a bigger hammer means taking a slightly less forceful approach when wielding it. Great power, great responsibility and all that jazz.

  1. There's talk of people being too ready to ban for differences of opinion. When it comes to regular contributors, this is a fair point, but at least enough sysops tend to be on hand to put it right, or at least provide oversight. For BoN or throwaway accounts that turn up purely to defend their favourite woo or favourite vlogger, too relaxed an approach to banning just creates more work cleaning up after them. As long as there's a chance that a visitor may be persuaded to see reason, then it's a good thing to keep engaging with them. If it's clear that they have no intention of debating in good faith, or merely keep repeating PRATTs, then the only reason to leave them unbanned is in order to bat them from paw to paw for entertainment purposes. A reasonable line, for me, is once dog-whistles and shibboleths start being thrown about sincerely. Once we get to 'anti-white', 'SJW' or 'beta cuck', it's time to bury them. I want editors to have the time to write new articles and improve existing ones. Cutting down on the amount of time spent cleaning up after some tosspot shits the bed helps with that.
  2. As far as missionality goes, I'm in favour of being broad when it comes to what articles we have, but narrow when it comes to the articles' contents. WP already exists. If you feel the urge to write general article on the subject, contribute there. Our articles, even on large topics, should focus on the associated woo, superstition and irrationality (but I repeat myself). Note that 'progressive' issues are 100% within our remit, as rational empiricism implies a progressive outlook. However, examination of the reactionary response to progressive issues is the equivalent of debunking woo, and that's the best angle to take. Thanks to crank magnetism, scratch a bigot and you find a conspiracy theorist. I have no time for anyone who tries to argue that social issues should be kept out of scepticism: making that claim is a transparent attempt to excuse one's own irrational beliefs or lack of will to follow empiricism to its conclusions.
  3. History (particularly recent history) articles can be problematic. We can't avoid them, as things like Holocaust denial are eternal, and bitter political disputes often involve irrational appeals to national, racial or religious pride. We'll never find a happy middle ground for contentious articles, but an appeal to the narrow focus above for such articles might mean we can cut away a lot of the arguable material.
  4. 'Don't feed the trolls' is not a panacea. Refusing to engage with trolls often means ceding the conversation space to them. I shouldn't have to point out why this is a bad thing. It's less of an issue with talk pages in a wiki, as the article itself is kept clean, but it's something to bear in mind. Rebutting them, even with a simple link to another article, is to be encouraged (along with the usual mockery). Huge Gish Gallops belong behind hats, if only to keep the page somewhat navigable. If they keep coming back for more, that's what the banhammer is for.
  5. Long blocks are not the end of the world. Repeat spammers, linkdumpers, mikemikev, etc. are all good candidates for geological age blocks. Again, this cuts down on cleanup when they come back and shit the bed again.
  6. Humour is an important part of RW. If you want to try and make it drier, you can fuck right off.

— Unsigned, by: Queex / talk / contribs

But DFTT is a panacea. In a wiki, trolls are often drive-by and ephemeral in nature when not engaged, and engaging them is a waste of time because they aren't here for meaningful discussion (this doesn't apply to legit idiots who come here to argue for their favorite woo). Thinking about "ceding the conversation space to them" is probably not the right way to think about trolls. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png That rug really tied the room together. 11:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah. You only have to look at youtube comments to prove that DFTT does not always work. Sure, each individual troll might be ephemeral, but from the perspective of everyone else it makes no difference if a conversation is ruined by one persistent troll or a battery of many one-shot trolls. Any unmoderated comments spiral downwards in direct proportion to their visibility on the web. 'Ceding the conversation space' is bad, because unchallenged nastiness dissuades good-faith contributors from pitching in. What was a high-minded attempt to get the troll to push off can easily read as tacit approval. That is, after all, the technique that many webshites use: have the article writer skirt around what they really want to say, let the commenters join the dots and make an appeal to free speech if anyone points out that the comments are shitty. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we're using different definitions of the word troll. I'm talking about the idiots who come to rustle people's jimmies, not the legit cranks. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png The puzzling cowbell of soul-crushing! 11:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The two aren't mutually exclusive, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:47, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
(EC) Probably. 'Troll' is a broad church. I think the principle applies to deliberate jimmy rustlers, though. Leaving a talk page full of unchallenged arsegravy is not an end point we should aspire to. As reverting their additions is generally frowned upon, there needs to be some answer. In fact, even facetious questions can lead to illustrative answers. Answering is also a good way of coping with that rare false positive, where the 'troll' wasn't really JAQing off, but genuinely uninformed. Trolls always let the mask slip if they have to find ways of working around an honest answer, and once the façade is broken we can banhammer with impunity. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I would dispute the assertion that trolls always "let the mask slip" given only an honest, calm answer to end their questioning; in my experience, some just find another topic (these are an admittedly still relatively obvious/less problematic sort; the "mask" has as good as slipped after a while), and some (these are the skilled/effective ones) accept the answer and behave... until a decent enough while later, when the cycle repeats... and repeats... although at some level you have to wonder if the more sophisticated ones aren't worth keeping around regardless of intent on account of all the non-trollesque stuff "in between" nuisance-posings. All of that said, I think (pending examples to make sure you haven't confused me, please?) I can get on board with a lot of what you're saying. WalkerWalkerWalker 13:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
For my sake, can I request concrete/specific examples to ensure I'm following the abstract whatevers? WalkerWalkerWalker 11:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The most recent example that springs to mind is The Escapist, where the commentariat has gone completely down the crapper. It's not a perfect example, though, as in that case there's the suspicion that the editorial stance was in favour of that kind of community. Reddit is a good way of comparing results side by side. Well-moderated subs work, ideologically-moderated subs suck, for their low expectations, unmoderated subs are worthless (or in the very best case scenario, are at permanent risk of becoming worthless if the reactionaries notice them - /r/whalewatching was a good example of that, I understand). The tenor of comments has been shown to influence what people think of an article ([1] - the link to the paper itself is broken and I CBA to dig it out right now) - specifically emotive language, in either direction, only makes passers-by entrench in their existing opinion. Granted the average RW article is not exactly non-combatative, which is part of what attracts trolls in the first place, but on that score trying to ignore thwem after the fact isn't going to reduce the number that turn up in the first place. We also have to have an eye to what first-timers will think if 'troll' posts (modulo definition of troll) go unchallenged - might they think that the regular contributors won't stand up for them, or their contributions, if such a troll directs its blather at them? Queexchthonic murmurings 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The jury is out on whether DFTT works or not, and certainly there have been very few articles published on the matter; although a few are illustrative and IMO lean towards confirming DFTT as the correct approach to get rid of trolls eg Trolls just want to have fun or Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia Trolls. Of course any discussion to be had on this issue is deeply rooted in assumptions about what a worthless site looks like and what exactly you want to achieve with trolls; you may find that your value judgments about these issues are not as universal as you think. Even the word itself is largely meaningless now since it is basically used as a synonym for "Person I don't like"; and there are arguments that trolls are a positive part of the online experience (eg. Exploring Mischief and Mayhem in Social Computing or: How we Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Trolls). Tielec01 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you could credibly make a case for something like the former /r/fatpeoplehate to be anything other than a warning and an example. 'Worthless' may be hyperbole, but I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a social forum that has reached that state justifies continued effort to keep it running and clean up the other messes it causes. A lack of moderation is not an apolitical act, it's a positive political act in favour of whoever is prepared to be the most vile and antagonistic. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
ETA: I'm not arguing the position that DFTT never works, just that it doesn't always work; if trolls get enough positive reinforcement from other trolls (either on the forum in question or congratulations on their raid when they return to base) then the lack of a response from their nominal targets is not enough to dissuade them. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ScepticWombat[edit]

The mod who mods the least mods the best. Let the grown-ups solve their own damn problems. Still, it's nice to have an emergency brake when the shit hits the fan. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Candidates endorsed by RW's marsupial demographic[edit]

Hmmm... let's see, how about

  • 142․124․55․236 - contributes a lot, and keeps flying the BoN colours even as a registered editor.
  • AgingHippie - the annually challenged bong jockey seems to know what's what.
  • Arisboch - multilingual swearing FTW!
  • David Gerard - DG knows the ropes and will hang you with them if you disrespects his wiki-fu.
  • Gooniepunk - vote before he changes account name again!
  • Human - because we need a member of the species.
  • Noir LeSable - because someone who can remember pi to 33 decimal places must be patient enough to be a mod
  • Paravant‏‎ - because incumbency.
  • Queex - free grog is good times!
  • Revolverman‏‎ - as anyone who has see Unforgiven will know, an old school gun slinger knows how to deal with the baddies.
  • ScepticWombat Not bloody likely!
  • Smerdis of Tlön - because RW needs a friendly Ruritanian dictator.
  • Stabby the Misanthrope‏‎ - a misanthropic mod? Count me in.

Yup, that seems all right for now. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Serocco[edit]

You want a detailed debunking of general bullshit and asshattery from some of the world's most unsavory figures (like I did with David Cameron, Sargon of Akkad, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan)? Vote for me and you'll see more!

... Wait, that's not what modding is? It's moderating, and modding is different? I can't purge other mods willy-nilly like a true Stalinist? Vote for me anyway! I will reign as the Emperor of the Americas, and all shall love me! Serocco 05:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön[edit]

Because I'm hard to take seriously as an authority figure. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Spud[edit]

If elected, I will concentrate on trying to stop trouble before it starts. I will always try to have a friendly word with anybody who doesn't quite seem to understand what RW is all about or doesn't quite seem to know how to play nicely here. I'll always try to guide potential problem editors away from actually becoming problem editors. If I'm not elected, I'll always try to do that anyway. Spud (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So I don't actually need to vote for you, because you'll do the same no matter what? Oh, I forgot; if elected you'll have some extra wiki-weapons to back up your good wiki-karma. Still, you make too much sense to get an official marsupial endorsement, but RW could certainly do worse. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Do vote for me! Otherwise, you've got it about right. Thank you for the lukewarm response. Spud (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I ain't lukewarm, I just prefer style over substance ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, there you have it. Vote for Spud for a solid, substantial, sensible and sensitive mod. Spud (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yuck, more substantive campaigning - gimme some pork & drama/bread & circuses. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Noisy interruption by your audience[edit]

Do you have any rough guiding principles for when moderating action is advisable? If so, what are they? WalkerWalkerWalker 07:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you pay per vote? I would not vote because honestly I don't give a shit who moderates this clown car that RationalWiki has become, but... Well, it was a good sentence to start with but it seems hard to find an endi... --Irian (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request, given what this page is and the heightened level of demobcracy meant to surround it, that {{collapse}} not be used here. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want my vote[edit]

Expand our mission statement by the sentence "Hitting Antisemitism and its proponents where they think they're safe" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You are going to be sorely disappointed if you think that's what mods can do. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Technically any sysop can do that. The thing is, any sysop can undo it too. And remarkably, I've seen Avenger do very little of 'hitting antisemitism', preferring to whitewash bad things Israel's done instead. Maybe Avenger doesn't care as much about antisemitism as he claims he does, eh. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, given that Avenger's first interaction with RW was to pout about how the site as a whole displayed antisemitic bias, at least they're consistent. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
And something about the west Sahara iirc. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but he only brought it up to go "Hey why don't you have an article on this yet? It must be because of Antisemitism!" He was pretty blatant about it too. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well we could create an article on Ken Jebsen or Jürgen Elsässer - you know, Antisemites... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No one's stopping you. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
I dimly recall the Al Quds day fiasco... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe insert less support for Palestinians = antisemitism bullshit in it next time? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:20, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
The starter of my Jürgen Elsässer article does not even mention the word Palestinian... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Good, good! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What's going to win my vote is work to ensure abuses of power do not happen. On another site, my actions were distinct from the crowd and rather unique, but did not break any rules. I had known for a while that the mods disliked me, but they surprised even me when they didn't even use a pretext to ban me, but blatantly fictional and illogical reasons instead. I know it's not the same here, but I still have a sort of conditioned fear/distrust of moderators. Thank you for your time. 107Ag47 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Really though[edit]

When are we going to move to true communism? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That can be done? WalkerWalkerWalker 22:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
What is "true" communism? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I rejoice for the day when all RWians, even BONs, have mod powers 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, no one will have any powers, and we will all become equal by way of having to solve disputes without any rights, including those given by having an account. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This is sounding like a trip through Polish history. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The Sejm was a perfectly functional system that never exploded. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Troll WalkerWalkerWalker 23:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

More importantly[edit]

What are each candidate's views on skub? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I've got canned heat in my heels tonight 10:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rarely does looking something up make me more greatly confused. Skillfully done. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's kosher. Spud (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's easily done, apparently. DirtyLittleFokker 07:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Can Users campaign in behalf of other users?[edit]

In the section above? Or would we have to do that below? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Better not. Everyone should only speak for him/herself.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I can vouch for Fonzie, although somebody seems to have forgotten to nominate him! His tireless handful of typo corrections have made this wiki what it is today - almost exactly the same as it was before he arrived. And he's cool. A respectable pillar of the community (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There should be at least one mod[edit]

Who is explicitly in favor of Israel. The last edit wars over Zionism would have been more easily solvable if the Zionist side had felt represented by a mod. And no part of our mission statement says or implies anything about Zionism or the opinion we "have to" have about it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about Israel any more than I care about Ecuador or Benin, but I do care that the constant arguing has made this place no fun any more. That and the gamergate stuff. BicyclewheelModerator 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favour of a prosperous, strong Israel. Though I'd also add "very tolerant and highly committed to human rights" to that mix. Obviously, I also wish these attributes to apply to all other nations of course. Is this not something you can agree with, Avenger? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think what we're missing here is a definition; what is meant by "explicitly in favor of Israel"? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Being against Hamas, for instance. And able to detect the Apartheid propaganda as the bullshit it is (instead of embarrassing our site by spreading it) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Being against hamas does not equate being in favour of Israel, or vice versa. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it seems ScepticWombat asked the right question. Avenger apparently considers it implicit in the phrase "in favor of Israel" that we should do away with attempts at diplomacy and whitewash Israeli human rights abuses. But I must strongly disagree with this; what such an attitude is in favour of is dead Palestinians and a corrupt Israeli government, neither of which are favourable! It's an outrage that you consider yourself pro-Israel, Avenger, when all this short-sighted self-serving sentiment achieves is to perpetuate the conflict and radicalize both sides, to the detriment of all involved! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It's the RW anti-Israel conspiracy, I tell ya.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Political views are irrelevant to taking on the responsibilities of moderator. For all of its presence in Recent Changes over the past few weeks, the situation in Israel/Palestine is at best marginal to the goals and purposes of this project, and someone's views on your pet cause should in no way be a prerequisite for how the community chooses to govern itself. I would, without doubt, have said the same thing to Mona, Ruylong, or any other outspoken advocate of a particular agenda, so please don't try to use this to fuel criticisms of my own politics. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, because it would've less of a mess if it was personal to the big mops. Brilliant! WalkerWalkerWalker 08:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no... single-issue litmus tests stink of an appeal to low-information voters. This right here is some classic tea party "freedom" caucus shit. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
AH wrote: " I would, without doubt, have said the same thing to Mona" You wouldn't have to. It'd never occur to me to seek ideological commitment of some sort to be a moderator. It just so happens, however, that the problem user who needs far more control than is imposed on him is a Zionist loon -- but he's also a general loon. Loony and disruptive on most everything. I strongly support mod-control of disruptive nuts so that the worker bees can actually, yanno, work. (Recognizing that this is not the majority view.)---Mona- (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you were name-dropped primarily as a way to tell what's 'is face to not go all idiotic persecution complex. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
My bias against Israel is a bias against apartheid. Just as how my bias against Hamas is a bias against terrorism. Why should a litmus test be used in favor of one side over the other? Serocco 03:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
And calling Israel an Apartheid state while denying the very real and scary Antisemitism of Hamas and Hezbollah is going to bring peace, how? Also, I understand AH's view even though I don't share it. No harm done, eh? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Criticizing Israel is not the same as endorsing Hamas. Please stop strawmanning. Serocco 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

So...[edit]

Why aren't there any spiffy professional looking campaign posters like this one? You slackers...

Weasel Lord.png

Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Because my poster maker is no longer visiting RW and the extent of my abilities amounts to "mspaint.exe + straight line tool"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Fuck posters. I want to know where each candidate stands on getting in the time machine to kill Baby Hitler.---Mona- (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you by any chance a Ray Bradbury fan? A Sound of ThunderWikipedia's W.svg has an election in it. Flux gate gamma (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I am staunchly pro-life (and thus staunchly anti-lethal-force and anti-genocide) and will instead of killing baby Hitler, raise them to be a good non-supremacist citizen! And while I'm in the time period, I'll also prevent the First World War and overthrow the Russian monarchy through peaceful means while I'm at it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Thank you candidate 142BoN. Too many of your fellow candidates are assiduously avoiding this issue.---Mona- (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Candidate fact sheet[edit]

I believe we need one of these to help people (especially me) keep tract of the different candidates. Forgive me if I've over stepped my bounds. I would like to make this sheet as nonpartisan as possible, let me know if it deviates from that. If you want to endorse a candidate(s) or add facts try to keep the format consistent and be gentle. I will try to maintain the fact sheet. Please comment and argue in the section beneath this one to keep the sheet clean. SolPyre (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Facts to be added: # of edits(?), how long a User, previous positions held and COOP cases lost, endorsements, anti-endorsements, activity on wiki(?), other(?)

If you want to endorse someone please do it like this:

Endorsements
  1. Endorsement: (a maximum of 20 words, if any)SolPyre (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Anti-endorsements
  1. Anti-endorsement: (a maximum of 20 words, if any, keep it clean you fuckers!)SolPyre (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    But I like it dirty. ;) WalkerWalkerWalker 17:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not endorse more than 4 candidates max limit your endorsements to a reasonable number. Keep the Anti-endorsments below the Endorsements. If the endorsements start taking up too much space I will put in expandable bar things. Statements by the candidates about their campaigns or themselves (other than facts) should remain in the campaign section up there ^^^ not on this sheet.

There are four moderator positions to be voted on. There are seven moderator incumbents but only three of those are confirmed to be seeking reelection. There are a total of twenty-six candidates on the ballot. The election booth is now open broken open and will remain open until November 24.

Incumbents[edit]

  1. David Gerard: User since May 2008. Has been a tech since October 2012. Has been a moderator since December 2013. Has been a board member since 2014.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Knows his shit. Fair. rpeh •TCE 19:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: DG knows the ropes and will hang you with them if you disrespects his wiki-fu. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: David and I tend to disagree on community politics, however, that being said, there is nobody I trust more to be a fair moderator than Gerard. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    4. Endorsement: Has only ever used his moderator powers as part of a coop. All you can really ask of a decent low-interference moderator. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    Anti-endorsements
    1. Anti-Endorsement: Prone to hissy fits and grudges.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Genghis Khant: User since July 2007. Has been a moderator since June 2011.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Knows what RW is about. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Paravant: User since January 2011 (under a different name). Has been a moderator since July 2013 (under a different name). Poster
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Because as the devil we know he's been doing decent work in a tough job.---Mona- (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: They can keep calm and are very active. SolPyre (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: Mona might actually have picked up my words above. Anyway, Mona and I don't agree on many things, but this is one. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk)
    4. Endorsement: Works hard for the community and has performed the task admirably in the face of the some of the shit-bags who populate this place. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    5. Endorsement: One of teh best editors I've seen so far on RationalWiki. One of the few actually level-headed editors at the site, and can handle situations nicely. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! Amen! 04:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    6. Endorsement: ...because incumbency. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    7. Endorsement: Levelheaded. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    Anti-endorsements
    1. Anti-endorsement: because someone has to. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Anti-endorsement: The patron of Mona, using her as a stalking horse for the advancement of jihad-apology.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Challengers[edit]

  1. 142․124․55․236: User since June 2015, IP since the beginning of time (May 2014), which was allegedly last thursday.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Their name is my fault. Ergo, they're pretty much my progeny. FuzzyCatPotato of the Treasonous Umbilical cords (talk/stalk) 00:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Fighting the good fight. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: It's time for the numerical demographic to be represented! 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    4. Endorsement: S/he's got several clues as well as equilibrium. ---Mona- (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    5. Endorsement: The only possible caveat would be the limited time as a registered user. However, there is a strong argument for that actually being a good thing. Excellent contributor and communicator. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    6. Endorsement: - contributes a lot, and keeps flying the BoN colours even as a registered editor. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    7. Endorsement: Active and reasonable, good at explaining things (to me). SolPyre (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    8. Endorsement: Has, like Mona said, a clue (or 142 clues, ha!). Keeps it level-headed but humorous. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    9. Endorsement: Active and reasonable. Ignore the two single-issue Katzenjammer kids below. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Anti-endorsements
    1. Anti-endorsement: Ruins the good name of BoNs everywhere. Is a major Mona-apologist. Hence no-no. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Anti-endorsement: No minions of Mona as mods.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Alec Sanderson: User under another name or two since May 2009.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: He'd be most likely to make the site safe for democr- those who play well together to write and document text worth having.---Mona- (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: watches TOW's page on French horns. What more must you know? WalkerWalkerWalker 13:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Anti-endorsements
    1. Anti-Endorsement: Also prone to hissy fits.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Aloysius the Gaul: User since April 2012.
  4. Arisboch: User since October 2013.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: He cares about us and this site! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! Say hi! Look here! Amen! 04:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Multilingual swearing FTW! ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: That's my fourth endorsement, so why not? Arisboch would certainly be as good as many other candidates. As with my other endorsements, I hope I don't scare the voters away. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    4. Endorsement: Wholehearted endorsement: Knows Computer stuff, cares about this site and is fair and level-headed even on political issues where we disagree. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    Anti-endorsements
    1. Anti-endorsement: has had some disputes that make me question the aura of calm diligence I expect from a moderator. Not a bad user though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Anti-endorsement: Not moderator material. Has a history of escalating drama, and shit-stirring. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Anti-endorsement: There is nothing in this editor's RW presence & behaviour towards other editors that says moderator-material. Has a habit of becoming very personal, as is evidenced on this page.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Captain Wolff: User since February 2014.
  6. ChrisAmiss: User since February 2015.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Despite the fact that we disagree on some little... big... things here and there, I have a fair deal of confidence in his approach and demeanor. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. CorruptUser: User since January 2015.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: New blood might be needed to balance out the incumbents (if they win). Serocco 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Based on my experiences, think he could sort things out reasonably well. ChrisAmiss (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. EddieMonah: User since February 2012.
  9. FuzzyCatPotato: User since June 2013. Has the highest edit count of any user in 2015, over twice the count of the next runner up. Is the maintainer of these useful graphs. Poster[FCP stamp of poster approval]
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Always helpful and knows his/her way around RW. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Greeted me once I first came here, and has been graciously helpful and contributed constructively ever since. I couldn't ask for more than that. So I game him the worst poster in history as thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: Will probably unblock the shit out of everything, but otherwise I endorse this one. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Gooniepunk: User since January 2008 (under a couple other names). Former board member (2011-2013(?)) and chairperson of the Rational Media Foundation (back when they did have meetings and post minutes), currently the tech power driving the abuse filters. Poster
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Useful, helpful and not stupid. rpeh •TCE 19:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Clearly a candidate who understands how this wiki community should behave and run itself.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: Cares about site. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    4. Endorsement: Experienced, loyal, knows how the community should be. Serocco 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    5. Endorsement: Because I tend to trust judgment of other endorser.---Mona- (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    6. Endorsement: Vote before he changes account name again!ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    7. Quasi-endorsement: He's cool, but I liked his previous username better. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
    8. Endorsement: Useful, helpful, not stupid, and experienced. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    9. Endorsement: i think reckless noise is a pretty cool guy. eh kills vandals and doesn’t afraid of anything. SockTheory 07:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Human: Was created 6000 years ago, according to one secondary source (~May 2007). Moderator from December 2011 to July 2012 and again from October to December in 2012, was also a Newt wtf? for a while. Has the all-time highest edit count of all users.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Because he gives a damn rpeh •TCE 19:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Because we need a member of the species. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Ikanreed: User since September 2013, tech since November 2014, talks a lot, but does very little.
  13. KOMF: User since January 2015.
  14. NarkySawtooth: User since January 2015. Poster?[Warning: NSFW]
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: will most certainly not rush headlong into doing something stupid; can deal calmly with idiocy without encouraging it. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: fucking narwhals, yeah! What more must I say? SockTheory 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  15. ℕoir LeSable: User since October 2010.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Because someone who can remember pi to 33 decimal places must be patient enough to be a mod. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  16. PacWalker: User since March 2015. Favorite edit summary might just be "oops!" Poster
  17. Queex: User since November 2014.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Free grog is good times! ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  18. Revolverman‏‎: User since May 2011.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: As anyone who has see Unforgiven will know, an old school gun slinger knows how to deal with the baddies. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  19. ScepticWombat: User since July 2014.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Wise and patient, qualities in short supply. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Good listener and hands off, which is what we need. Serocco 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  20. Serocco: User since August 2013.
  21. Smerdis of Tlön: User since July 2013.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Because RW needs a friendly Ruritanian dictator. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  22. Spud: User since September 2011.
  23. Stabby the Misanthrope: User since August 2007. Board member since 2014.
    Endorsements
    1. Endorsement: Always has the best interests of the site in mind. rpeh •TCE 19:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Experienced. FuzzyCatPotato of the Unrefined T-shirts (talk/stalk) 01:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: A misanthropic mod? Count me in. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    4. Endorsement: One of the founding members of the RW Welcoming Committee, and carries a lot of RW's institutional memory. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fact sheet talk[edit]

Moved off the sheet:
From the PacWalker listing:

This sounds about right. DirtyLittleFokker 06:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this was an endorsement. I think he was mocking the lack of info. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Fixed and fixed SolPyre (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

From the ChrisAmiss listing:

Endorsement:Because he's pro-citation. Changed mind. He's a great writer who grasps need to source claims and does it well. But have to give this to other with more clear mod skills.---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved off sheet to keep it clean. SolPyre (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

From the Noir LeSable listing:

Endorsement: Because someone who can remember pi to 33 decimal places must be patient enough to be a mod. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I endorse this endorsement. WalkerWalkerWalker 06:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The comment from PacWalker was moved off the sheet to keep it clean. The endorsement itself was not removed. SolPyre (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The former AgingHippie listing (withdrew from RW politics to pursue some peace and quiet):

  1. AgingHippie: User since July 2007, under a plethora of names; former Moderator; great dancer;[citation NOT needed] makes all his own clothes; possibly high.
    1. Endorsement: Been doing good work keeping the site safe from idiots. rpeh •TCE 19:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    2. Endorsement: Marches to the beat of his own drum, but is fair. Sorry if I cost you votes, AH. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    3. Endorsement: Often sane & calm, simultaneously. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    4. Endorsement: Has the experience, has the hip, has the age. If it isn't me, of course. Serocco 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    5. Endorsement: The annually challenged bong jockey seems to know wot's wot. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    6. Endorsement: Doing good work here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    7. Endorsement: (grumble grumble) because (inaudible). Also, He won't ever pass on second down on the one yard line with the best Runningback in the game. Mostly 'cause he doesn't care for Football Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    8. Anti-endorsement: (if there can be such a thing). Seems to think that longevity of membership means immunity for poor behaviour. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    9. Anti-endorsement: Behavior in disagreements has been rather disturbing to me. AyzmoCheers 13:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
AgingHippie has withdrawn from the race and AH was the one who put in the strikethrough. I moved the listing down to keep the sheet clean. SolPyre (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

About User:Fat Aardvark:

This user shows up on the election booth ballot, therefor I must include them on the list. SolPyre (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This user no longer shows up on the election booth page :D , therefor I need not include them on the list. SolPyre (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)