RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results/Archive10

The nicest bunch of assholes on RationalWiki Moderators

Moderation

What? Where? Who?

Shills and Whores

Elections Nominations Campaigns Voting booth Results v - t - e

Moderator election schedule

---

Nominations and campaigning will run:
24 December 2017 – 07 January 2018

---

Voting will run:
11 January – 17 January 2018 (Results)

---

We will be electing:
6 mods, 2 alternates

v - t - e

Results

hi, i'm the return officer

3 votes this election were cast for pbfreespace3, who has 0 endorsements

these are the votes:

1 11 9 10 1 4 6 7 2 3 0
1 11 9 10 6 4 3 1 7 2 0
1 11 0

a vote is structured like this:

1 candidate candidate candidate 0

i haven't, won't, and can't look up who cast these ballots. however, they're highly suspect. last election, 5 ballots were cast for (#1) avengerofthebon and (#2) pbfreespace3. for 4/5 of those ballots, the first three candidates were the same candidates; this time, 2/3 were.

i've prepared results with and without these ballots -- i'll leave it up to you to decide what to do. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Decision zone

the known elected mods are: Bongolian, CheeseburgerFace, Christopher, CowHouse, DiamondDisc1, LeftyGreenMario

the known replacement is: Spud

the choice: Pbfreespace3 vs Nerd for #2 mod replacement

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

1. If this isn't in the wrong space, I vote for Nerd. They're clearly the more qualified candidate. Comrade GC (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
2. I voted for Nerd in the ballot, so I vote the same here too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
3. It should be Nerd as replacement. Bongolian (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Definitely Nerd as replacement. Congratulations to all the new mods! Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Nerd should be replacement. Also, you have all been manipulated by the Neo-British Empire that seekritly controls both the wiki and the world. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Nerd. pbfreespace3 is a joke choice, no offense.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

imo, the goal isn't really to vote yes/no for the preferred candidate (that defeats the point of ranked choice voting) but to discuss whether the pbfreespace3 ballots should be considered valid. if they aren't, then pb doesn't get the position -- if they are, then he does. i'm not a mod anymore tho so look to the new guys for guidance FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe the PB3 votes are illegitimate? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nerd if PB3 votes are illegitimate. It does seem suspicious that someone heavily anti-endorsed would get to a replacement position.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 06:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Using socks to elevate one's vote count is not good, if that is being implied. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it shouldn't be considered valid. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like PB tried to hijack the election (again) ergo he should be immediately disqualified from the voting process. Comrade GC (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The election uses the database's primary keys. Tampering can be identified.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

My vote here wasn't for a candidate per se but against voting manipulation. Bongolian (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain the the evidence for tampering with the election, please? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is two people (excluding Pb3space, who presumably voted for themselves) out of ~40 ballots unreasonable? I haven’t had much interaction with them although they look like a trouble maker. Christopher (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In a head-to-head, and assuming all the votes are legitimate, 21 voters preferred Nerd and 9 preferred Pbfreespace3. It seems like the single transferable vote is flawed if a clearly preferred candidate (Nerd) loses in this scenario. Nonetheless, this is the system we agreed to use so we can't change the rules after the fact. To answer Fuzzy's question, I'm happy to consider the votes to be valid unless someone can present evidence that they're not. CowHouse (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Christopher yes and no. it's strange bc Pb had 0 endorsements and 8 antiendorsements

@CowHouse the votes for Pb were higher up the stack than for Nerd (ie, the votes for Nerd got partially "spent" electing other candidates), so they get higher weight. this is actually how the system is supposed to work -- the only concern is about sockpuppeting Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

the endorsements and antiendorsements? mean nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the modus operandus (poorly qualified candidate with lots of anti-endorsements wins election, possibly by sock puppets) for the apparent hack in this election very closely resembled that of the previous moderator election. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

they're a useful proxy for guesstimating how strongly the community supports a person. if a person has 0 endorsements it's strange that 3 ppl felt so strongly as to vote that person for #1 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato Yes, I realise that's how it's supposed to work. That's why I said the system is flawed (an overwhelming majority of voters, 70%, preferred Nerd to Pbfreespace3). We should, in my opinion, consider alternative electoral systems for future elections. For instance, at the moment you can only vote for, not against, a candidate. Six voters ranked all 13 candidates and placed Pbfreespace3 last, but this does not matter with the STV system.

Also, one of the votes for Pbfreespace3 would have likely been from Pbfreespace3, so two votes are suspicious at most (therefore, the "results without Pbfreespace3 ballots" should have still included 1 of the 3 votes instead of none). In terms of the lack of endorsements, the Shy Tory Factor might apply. CowHouse (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fuzzy - so what is that 8 anti endorsements and 40 voters? thats 32 voters, most voters, who we have no idea their opinions on the matter. all the endorsements/antiendorsements came from the same small group of people, the same small group, the same mutually back slapping bubble. whether you think pb was a valid candidate or not, 3 votes for them does not remotely look suspicious. does it not occur to you that pb may have got those votes precisely because that bubble were against pb? its interesting to see how quickly principles go out the window so quickly when things dont go the way you all expect. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, two people deciding to vote for an unpopular candidate (I’m presuming Pb3 is one of the votes) isn’t unreasonable and the burden of proof is on those who want to override the vote to prove sock puppetry. Christopher (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It probably won't even end up being a big deal, but I am intrigued by how two of them started with the same three votes. —Kazitor, ^pending 12:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lots of people put Lefty high up on their lists, Nerd, although he was a good candidate and I put him high up in my vote, is harder to explain as he didn’t have enough votes to get in. It can still be put down to cpnincidemce quote easily though Christopher (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, maybe Nerd is "good" but the others won out more so he happened to get less votes overall. I myself didn't put him up too high because I don't know him too much and I'm more familiar with CheeseburgerFace, DiamondDisc, Bongolian, and so on; I'm just more hesitant on users I know a little less, but either way, it's not the easiest decision for me to prioritize. I just wonder if other people have similar process. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I did vote for Nerd above Pbfresspace3, but he was further down on the list than some others for the same reason as you (seems like a good dude, but I don't really know him). Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 23:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, guys! Unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that He who dislikes lead received illegitimate votes, I'd say he won fair and square. Everyone remains innocent unless proven guilty. Nerd (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As an aside

i plan to leave RW about when my board term expires (august 2018), and I & David Gerard appear to be the only ones who know how to make the elections start + read the ballots. (i don't know david's plans, but he seems to be getting less active as well.) i strongly suggest that the RW community decide on an alternative method for electing mods and boardmembers, such as another mediawiki plugin The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm worried about this given most people here probably don't know how the ballot system even works. I myself don't know inner workings of MediaWiki all that well. What is this MediaWiki plugin that controls elections even called? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

it's a custom election written by trent or nx https://github.com/RationalWiki/mediawiki-extensions-RWElection FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else even know how to install a mediawiki plugin? Bongolian (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done plenty of stuff with PHP on many websites before, if it's worth anything. I doubt it would be too hard. —Kazitor, ^pending 06:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I’d trust Kazitor with server access. Christopher (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be good to have at least two people with sufficient knowledge and trust for this position. Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's hard installing a mediawiki plugin. In fact, there's a how-to and so on this. I myself just don't know how Internet servers even work, since I've never ran one. I like Kazitor having access, though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not hard at all. It's just an include (well, a require) in the config file. That tends to be how these sort of things work anyway. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can step up if necessary, but if someone else wants to do it, let them do it.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 06:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus Time

We need to arrive at this decision, if we haven't already. Are PB3's votes legitimate? RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm convinced now, so per the rules. Even if they weren't, they wouldn't have enough impact. Let the votes stand and worry about the next election where new rules will be put in space. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, count them as legit. It hardly matters. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there are grounds for discounting ballots cast for PB3. It does sound like we need to get off our duffs about reforming the election process so these ambiguities don't strike again next time. Peyre (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sadly yes, the votes are legitimate. Comrade GC (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace3 It seems as though you are now #2 mod replacement. Handle your newfound proximity to power well. Apologies to @Nerd. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, FCP. Glad to see the controversy of the results has been cleared up. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is our fault and our mess

After this happened last time, several users called for clear rules on how to objectively deal with this kind of problem. We were lazy and did nothing about it. Predictably we are once again in a situation where we all bypass a vote which fulfilled all the rules, and are collectively voting on how to change the results. This is a total failure. We should have dealt with the very very likely contingency that PBFreespace would sneak by in this election. This shouldn't be decided by a vote. A set of clear rules on how to objectively determine a voting violation should be made...election held again and whether to accept the results determined based on clear objective rules we set up. Otherwise its just a majority of users voting against results they don't like based on supositions, regardless of how likely the supposition may be true.^{— Unsigned, by: 87.218.195.99 / talk / contribs}

I would also like to point out that even if Pbfreespace3 gets elected as an alternate, he would be below Spud (I think), so we'd be able to have one moderator leave without having to put Pb in. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, Spud is the first choice alternate according to the results. CowHouse (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to raise this issue twice before that 87.218.195.99 has raised, but it has seemed that no consensus could be raised on changing the rules. Perhaps the moderators can come up with a new set of rules first then put them up to a vote before the mob for a yea-or-nay vote? Bongolian (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

to be fair, any effective solution would probably be a technical one -- eg, requiring voters to have had X votes in the past Y months -- that nobody was willing to work on before. maybe @Kazitor would be willing? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean "requiring voters to have had X edits in the past Y months"? Doesn't sound unreasonable; it'll hinder the effectiveness of sockpuppeting / meatpuppeting and I think people who want to participate in a community-driven thing kind of have to be engaged enough to begin with. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The OP is right. This isn't the first time twats have been elected - MarcusCicero was elected mod a while back, and brxbrx was an alternate if I recall correctly. Let's sort this out in time for the next election. Here's an idea - anyone blocked after a chicken coop vote cannot be a mod. Wilder^Bicycle 19:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that rule. I think personal record does take into account, but there may be potential candidates who were blocked via cooping and then drastically improved over the years. I don't know if that has ever happened, but I don't also want that becoming a problem. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok then, anyone coop-blocked in the last n years? n can be a small number as most people seem to only last two or three years here. Wilder^Bicycle 21:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't receive that ping. I agree that having recent edits as a criterion for voting eligibility is fair. People who vote should probably be fairly active within the community (of course, I didn't make the election, so I guess it's up to the mods to determine how this should work). To address your comment, I could handle making the relevant changes to the extension. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I just don't see any advantage to allowing coop-blocked or sysop-revoked accounts to run for moderator. If the person behind such an account really did come around and see the light, has improved and wants to be a moderator, then they can just start over with a new account and demonstrate it. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. There should be some reasonable restrictions on crappy accounts from becoming moderators: no sysop-revokes, no non-sysops, minimum number of edits, minimum amount of time active. All of this is completely reasonable. Bongolian (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

CowHouse (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the whole "they can erase their record with a new account" on the other hand. I don't encourage making new accounts just because I myself like to see personal improvement, easier to keep record of history (while at the same time, don't focus too much on the history), and I don't think people should create new accounts just to completely wipe their history of past infractions compared to accepting those and moving on. Honestly, we shouldn't have to keep track of names like this either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm-a with Lefty on this. That sounds like a system that would encourage sockpuppetry. Peyre (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

An idea for a formal process

While I'm not particularly against self-nomination, we can use endorsements to determine who gets onto the ballot. Only users that acquire a certain amount of endorsements before voting begins can be voted for. Presumably this means that nominations should end some time before voting starts, to allow time for that. —Kazitor, ^pending 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Nerd (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't support such a suggestion unless the minimum number of endorsements was very low, and even if it was I'd have my doubts, Shy Tory Factor and all that. Christopher (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess it's more about endorsements vs anti-endorsements. Most of the candidates actually had quite a few endorsements, with little or no anti-endorsements. Xbony2 and Pbfreespace3 each had no legitimate endorsements and 6 and 8 anti-endorsements respectively. So the minimum could even be one from that, but even two or three would probably be enough. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Id say one endorsement from an active account that isn’t yourself is reasonable Christopher (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Assuming "active" excludes long-time socks, of course. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this would be far too easy to abuse and would lead to loads of drama ( crossing out the endorsement of an account you don’t like saying they’re blatantly a sock of the candidate etc). Im withdrawing my support for this proposal. Christopher (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Some rules I'm suggesting

1. All candidates have to have been on the wiki for 6 months.

2. All candidates have to have made 300 edits by the time the election starts.

3. All candidates have to have edited at least 10 times in the two months before the election. -ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 06:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

300 edits seems a bit low, TBH. Maybe 300 non-talk page edits?

Personally, I think the rules should include something a bit more... anarchist. I'm thinking, the zeroth rule: Do not piss off everyone else here. I don't care that the person has been "technically" following the rules, if the person is an asshole they shouldn't be in power. CorruptUser (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the non-talk edits idea.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 01:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And pissing people off can be reflected in the anti-endorsements. I'm in favour of not allowing some nominees to go onto the ballot on the basis of their anti-endorsements. I think that would necessitate expanding the election process by a week or two. Spud (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Non talk page is good idea.ShabiDOO 10:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

'And pissing people off can be reflected in the anti-endorsements.' pissing people off is reflected in the voting surely? i have said above why the endorsements are meaningless. you will effectively have the same small group deciding who can and cannot stand. can you say 'closed shop'? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we can introduce a sort of "votes for removal of nomination" system sort of thing, and maybe one mod's vote and an X amount of votes by nonmods. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

so a vote to see who we can vote for? we dont need to make it needlessly more complex, particularly if we tighten the rules on who can stand in the first place. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's basically what my idea of going by endorsements/anti-endorsements was about. That's essentially a vote that already exists. —Kazitor, ^pending 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps! Maybe if someone gets anti-endorsed by an X amount of users and maybe at least one mod, that can be grounds for disqualification. You're okay with mods carrying some more weight here, or is it too "bureaucracy"ish? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

endorsements are still the same small group deciding who gets to stand. and what for? you worried about the people not voting the way you like? as said, tighten the rules on who can stand. have Cooped or sysop revoked users ineligible. job done. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not really "the same small group", anyone can leave an anti-endorsement if they want. I think it's fair to say that if anyone isn't leaving endorsements or anti-endorsements, it means they don't particularly care. If they don't care, their opinion is of little consequence. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, @AMassiveGay. Future elections should be as simple as possible, with any complications, such as qualifications, dealt with beforehand. Bongolian (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you think we should try to implement DiamondDisc1's recommendations along with the sysoprevoke and and coop clauses, correct? Count pbfreespace3 votes as valid, but implement these new rules for the next election. Are we good with this? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Poll

* dons Mod Hat * 

Alright, vote here for proposals you agree with and suggest alternatives to ones you don't. Feel free to nominate a proposal. All proposals agreed on become wiki law.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 06:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 You should advertise this in the Saloon Bar and/or in MediaWiki:Sitenotice Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

DD1's recommendations

Yes

1. Spud (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Seems reasonable. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
3. I'm for anything reasonable that raises the bar for candidacy, but 10 edits in 2 months seems like a lack of recent engagement, and could e.g. just be a bunch of minor edits. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Only if it is applied for future votes and not retroactively for the current disputed vote. ShabiDOO 20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Per all. I do think "10 edits in 2 months" should be changed to a higher bar, though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Perfectly sensible. Nerd (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
7. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Seems reasonable - and now for some comments: 1. All candidates have to have been on the wiki for 6 months (No comments, seems alright for a mod). 2. All candidates have to have made 300 edits by the time the election starts. (Specify mainspace edits as per the debate below). 3. All candidates have to have edited at least 10 times in the two months before the election. (As Lefty stated above, 10 edits might be a bit on the low side, but I actually don't know how much editing the "average, active" RW'er manages to get done). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   @ScepticWombat In terms of determining how much the average editor gets done, the Special:Editcount page is useful. CowHouse (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

9. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No

1. For suggestion 2, I don't see why they have to be non-talkspace edits. Can someone explain why that's important? For suggestion 3, I think defining the edits as taking place over multiple days would be better. Candidates would have to make at least one edit over [x] days. Otherwise you could easily make 10 minor edits all on the same day. Also, at what point is the edit count measured? Is it before nominations or can you get nominated and then make the sufficient number of edits to qualify before accepting? CowHouse (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   I suppose the non talk page criterion is to filter out those whose edit count consists mainly of talk page drama, rather than actual contributions to articles. If my guess is correct, then I can certainly see reason to it. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   I was just looking at it in terms of whether it is relevant for a moderator. Moderators don't really need to make actual contributions to articles and arguably should devote most of their time to talk and discussion pages. So disqualifying a candidate who mostly uses talk pages doesn't make sense to me. If anything, it would be more disqualifying if they largely avoided talk pages. In my view, an indication that they are active is most important. CowHouse (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   The likelihood that those who contributes regularly to main space deliberately avoid talk pages is rather low in my eyes. I’d much prefer a prospective candidate who browse over the mainspace (i.e. actually contributes something to the articles), than someone who spend all their time on the talk pages. I don’t think that mods should just stick to the talk pages, even if arbitration/cool down is their central role. Having arbiters with little actual involvement with creating and improving the articles that RW is about seems odd to me. I’d consider a good mod to be one that actually engages in both tasks. Sure, it’s not a perfect criterion, but if we need some rough filter to sift out “show spoiler/drama/troll candidates”, I think looking at mainspace edits makes more sense. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

   There are users who mostly stick to editing main space articles and rarely use talk pages (such as Peyre). I can't argue with what your preferred prospective candidate would be like, and I don't particularly disagree with your reasoning. My objection is to making this a prerequisite for candidates, rather than a good reason for an anti-endorsement. Sorry if I'm being argumentative. CowHouse (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

   No worries, this kind of reasoned back and forth is, after all, what the deliberative process is (supposed to be) all about. If someone deliberately shuns talk pages that is indeed a worrying sign (and likely to generate some anti-endorsement for high-handedness) and I agree that the main space criterion is far from flawless. I guess my support is at least partly based on my general concern that talk page drama (and contents of the various identity politics/culture war pages) seem to suck up an inordinate amount of the hours put into RW from the total collective of editors. Hence my preference of a good contributor who decides to go into mediation and conflict resolution over someone who contributes little to RW articles. I think you may be right that such concerns are better solved by anti-endorsements, rather than rules, and I don't see these suggestions as a panacea. Indeed, I'm conflicted as to whether the PBF brouhaha actually illustrates serious problems with the election process as well as whether this rule making debate is pertinent to the potential(!) problems with "bad" mods (see my Goat post in the sysoprevoke section). Basically, my reasoning goes something like this: If these kinds of rules are merited, then I'd prefer rules that reward contributors, rather than talkers - even if mods are expected to cruise the talk pages. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

2. The thing about non-talkspace edits reeks of the 90/10 rule from CP. Besides, surely moderators would be making talkspace edits, since there's no other good way to prevent/resolve problems. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
3. --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. It would be nice if there was a summery of these suggestions. Comrade GC (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

DiamondDisc1's suggestions:

1. All candidates have to have been on the wiki for 6 months.

2. All candidates have to have made 300 (non-talkspace) edits by the time the election starts.

3. All candidates have to have edited at least 10 times in the two months before the election.

And as for the other rule, anyone who has been banned through coop or received the sysoprevoke penalty will be ineligible to run.

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Would like my amendment to DD's rules; that it's 300 non-talk page edits. CorruptUser (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   We should probably not count userspace edits (maybe barring userspace sandbox) and saloon bar. Anyhow, any easy way to verify this amount, before we head on? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   Perhaps to clarify, change "non-talkspace" to "mainspace". It's not too hard to verify that number for any particular user, and it probably won't be needed to be used much in any case. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   Specifying mainspace edits seems to be a more reasonable choice in my opinion, after all, debate on an article's talkpage can be productive. Comrade GC (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   No problem with this.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Would everyone be okay with me changing 10 in my third suggestion to 100?-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   It's worth noting that this rule would have made Reverend Black Percy ineligible since their last edit was in September 2017. Should there be any exceptions to this rule? CowHouse (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   I think interested former mods can just try to follow the guidelines if they must. I think 100 is a little high, but over two months is likely doable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke proposal

Yes

1. Nobody who has been sysoprevoked or blocked as a result of a coop case in the last 3 years should be eligible. Spud (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

   @Spud: That's not a good idea. RationalWiki seems to have a fairly high user turnover rate. Being here for a year is almost enough to qualify a person for "Old guard" status, two or more is even more impressive. Only the most persistent users stay for three years, and only the borderline-obsessive do so with much consistency. Note that the majority of new mods here haven't been here for three years, so that time-limit ban effectively stops "redeemed" users from running at all. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

   @RoninMacbeth: I chose 3 years because I know that most users don't stay for more than a year. I know that it's almost an eternity in RationalWiki time. If somebody had been sanctioned as a result of a coop case and then gone on to be a reasonably good editor for 3 years, that would be a display of a genuine change of heart. But OK. How about nobody who has been sysoprevoked or blocked as a result of a coop case in the past year? Spud (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   One year seems pretty reasonable. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   Good. Spud (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
3. It should be obvious. Bongolian (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
4. In my opinion this should have been implemented long before this point. Comrade GC (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
5. No brainer. ShabiDOO 20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Per all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
7. —Kazitor, ^pending 21:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Self-evidently logical. Nerd (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
9. The worst thing about RW down the years has been a willingness to let trolls piss all over the place. Wilder^Bicycle 22:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Proponent of this from the beginning, with the reservation that if PB3's votes are found legitimate, this rule does not apply to him. Ex post facto rules are completely unacceptable. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

    At this point, I don't think anyone advocates changing rules ex post facto and I do think most people will just let PB3 votes stand. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

11. Yes, and per RoninMacbeth. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 23:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Obvious rule patch is obvious. CorruptUser (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
13. Per RoninMacbeth. CowHouse (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
14. Duh.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
15. A Coop-vote against an user counts as a vote of no confidence from the community, although there should be some statute of limitations for this. Hertzy (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

    In my view, no statute of limitations is needed: we are not censuring the person, we are censuring the account. The person behind the account can always create a new account work their way back into sysop with without a lot of effort. Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

    I think an acceptable compromise would be to set the statute of limitations to something longer than a new user needs to be eligible. Less griping about how a coop vote is a death sentence, but we still get the net effect of them making a new account plus we can be on our toes in case a repeat of whatever got them censured is on the horizon. Hertzy (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

    Again, preventing an account from being moderator in perpetuity is not a punishment in perpetuity to the person behind an account. It takes exceptionally little effort to create multiple accounts, and we know with reasonable certainty that people do this all the time. This is not worth the debate. Making someone create a new account at least makes them go through the minimal effort of climbing back up to sysop. Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

    It's not a death sentence, it's a not-being-a-moderator sentence. Wilder^Bicycle 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

16. I'm surprised this is a matter of debate at all, but then again, RationalWiki is terrible. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No

1. Limiting candidacy based on sysoprevoke status is akin to banning anyone found guilty of any crime from seeking elected office. The point of the election is to weed people like that out, with the idea that they will be elected or not elected based on popular trust. Why insert additional barriers to candidacy when the opinion of the voting population should be the most effective barrier in the first place? If we use sysoprevoke as a barrier to candidacy, then sysoprevoke will basically become a checkbox that says "disenfranchised", just like authoritarian countries where opposition candidates are found "disqualified" by some arbitrary rule. We all know why they're really being disqualified, but all those in charge have to say is "oh they're sysoprevoked, so obviously they shouldn't be able to run in elections". This kind of restriction is going to be abused, period. That's why I'm against it. Furthermore, this kind of exclusionary behavior is a big part of why I decided to run in this election at all, and it looks like I've proven a point even without becoming mod. I also want to add that I'm not doing this for myself, as you can tell by LeftyGreenMario's comment in the above section. I'm voting this way for all the future people who want to run for mod but find themselves unable to do so because a mod checked a button on their userpage. PBfreespace (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
2. I don't think that past sysoprevokes should automatically make a user ineligible for the same reasons that I disapprove of disenfranchising those who have already completed their sentence. I see far less problems with disbarring users who are currently sysoprevoked from running, although (at least for blocked users) they might already fall short of DD1's recent edits criterion. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
3. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
4. --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. I like the idea, but it seems like there should be a limit on disqualification from elections: You're disqualified from, say, the next election or two if you've been banned via the coop, for instance. It seems like maybe there should also be an appeal process for those who've been banned but would like to be considered for eligibility, and on the flip side a process for disqualifying abusers of the system separate from the coop. I'd call that "just my 2¢", but it might be closer to 1½¢. ^{— Unsigned, by: Peyre / talk / contribs}

   The appeal process sounds nice, though it probably requires another layer of its own set of rules. Not opposed to it either but I think that's another discussion, like more discussion after the rules are implemented. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

2. I think we need to consider two things: What are mods for and how much damage can a "bad" mod do? As I see it, mods are basically a combination of über-janitors, arbiters and referees, meaning that we need mods who are a fairly constant presence on RW, engage when things are getting (too much) out of hand (mainly to let everyone involved cool down) and otherwise simply make the place run in terms of the social aspects of a wiki (discourse and debates, not rows or flame wars are to be encouraged). My second question concerns whether we should get all up in arms over the mere prospect(!) of a potential "bad" mod (and yes, I did anti-endorse PbF during the campaign, btw). As it stands (if I'm up to speed on results), PBF is slated to become merely a second alternate, meaning that any concerns are only relevant if two mods retire/go AWOL. However, even more importantly, what kind of damage could PBF actually do if (s)he became a mod? If PBF were to become a "bad" mod, then I suspect this to be quickly followed by a coop case, a recall and then PBF would be out in the cold (again). To my knowledge, mods have a fairly limited potential for doing extensive or lasting damage - especially if, as is the case of PBF, their behaviour is already under a microscope for any signs of shenanigans or bad faith. In sum, don't get all bent out of shape over hypothetical problems which are likely to be minor even if they were to occur and for which an emergency brake probably already exists. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

CowHouse's election proposal

Yes

1. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
2. My contention is that there is a fundamental problem with the STV system, regardless of whether or not there were illegitimate votes in the last election. Namely, that there is no consequence for candidates that are consistently ranked last. I remember other users saying that it's fine for anyone to be nominated since if they were unpopular, they won't win. This is not true with STV. As long as a handful of voters rank you highly, there is a good chance you will win even if every other voter ranked you last. Remember, STV allowed MarcusCicero to become a moderator (who wrote comments like this). Fixing the electoral system means that we can keep our elections open to more people (both voters and candidates), rather than making it more of a closed shop. Additionally, election hacking is much more difficult in my proposed system since unpopular candidates require far more than a handful of first choice preferences. CowHouse (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   Although the STV would have solved the issue for this year's election, it I'm not sure that it have for last years because the troll-in-question was actually highly ranked based on the marshaling of a few sock puppets. STV works fine if you only have voters with good intentions and/or have a way of validating voters' true identities. Bongolian (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   So I tallied up Avengerofthe BoN's head-to-head results from the December 2016 election, including all the suspicious votes. Compared to the other 14 candidates, Avengerofthe BoN won 3 matchups and lost 11, and therefore would not have been elected using my proposed system. So I maintain that it is much more difficult to manipulate election results with my proposed system.

CowHouse (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No

1. No disrespect meant to CowHouse, who has obviously devoted lots of thought and effort into the proposal. But it's still an relatively untested homegrown solution without precedent. There is no fundamental problem with Single transferable vote as applied in this most recent election except for the perception that an unpopular candidate may have attempted to game the vote. Proposals to fix the issues in the most recent election have been debated and presented here. STV is an established system with a lot of history and has served RW pretty well. Issues that have arisen are not because of faults in STV but rather in the eligibility of voters and candidates. Those issues don't seem to indicate such a fundamental change to the system. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Per Cosmikdebris. Comrade GC (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
3. The main problem with our elections is that we need to deter and prevent election hacking by bad actors, who have interfered with the past two moderator elections. That does not require a technological fix, but rather a minimum requirement fix. Bongolian (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
4. I don't think such a fundamental change is required. PB (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
5. --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)16:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

Who cast the votes? Is there an actual need for a secret ballot? CorruptUser (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's to prevent people getting pissy because they were low on the list, or just to encourage voting for your actual preferences instead of what'll look good. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 04:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with Spriggina. CowHouse (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

All voters should have at least 50 edits in the month before the election starts

No

1. Definitely not. That would make the number of potential voters very small. I say eligible voters should have made at least 75 edits in total and 1 edit in the month before the election. Spud (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Completely agree with Spud. This would make the electorate a mere handful of users and pretty much make the whole idea of an election silly. Spud's alternative sounds fairly sensible, although it does seem to cut the electorate down to only currently (moderately - hahaha...) active users - and I'm not sure whether that's particularly desirable. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
3. --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Per Spud above. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
5. While I see the problem with old sock accounts voting, we should be careful not to prevent lurkers from voting. CowHouse (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
6. That sounds bad. —Kazitor, ^pending 03:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. 50 is just a random number, feel free to suggest alternatives.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

   I would suggest 20. 50 is too high. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

These elections are such a joke

Someone disliked by the inner cliques of this wiki can win fair and square but you just give it to whoever you think is more qualified. Three people voted in a way you don't like, and now you have a problem accepting it. With R-W being a registered non-profit that accepts donations, there has to be some kind of legal ramifications of operating like this. KaileyM (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Tell me exactly and specifically how this "someone" is qualified right now before I right you off as . --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

See, you think PB is unqualified and that's why you responded as you did. ANYONE who meets the basic requirements is qualified. KaileyM (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Go play some more video games brat, I'll bet you weigh 600 pounds. KaileyM (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, a lot of users (myself included) are fine with treating the pbfreespace3 votes as valid. —Kazitor, ^pending 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have my reasons, but they're unrelated and beyond to "he followed the rules and the rules let him be part of the election". That's the thing, the "basic requirements" may not be stringent enough for some, especially when moderator powers are a step above most user powers, so it's important that a degree of caution is played here, which some users on this discussion page have questioned. I don't think it's a matter of "we just don't like Pbfreespace3 personally", it's just this person has shown time and time again to put our trust in this person's judgement into question. It's problematic when people who have no idea of personal record try to nominate this user and the user accepts. Anti-endorsements do carry some weight, but they may not be enough, as what's going on right now. I mean, I think the votes did their overall job right; Pbfreespace is not getting mod position, just a runner-up at best, but I also understand other users' concerns.

Overall, I don't think it's much of a big deal on pbfreespace3 votes, but again, I do understand the concern of potential of abuse. That being said, I think any mod who abuses power can always be checked either way, as how it's been done in the past, I believe. I do wonder what Nerd wants though, but ultimately, there's always a next time, so we'll see. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

there slim to none evidence of abuse and pb was nominated as per the rules and gained the votes of 3 people as per the rules. you dont like the result but you cant retroactively change the rules because you dont like how it went. the video game brat thing aside, its a fair point about legal ramifications, whatever they may be. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose we should try to move on and then reconsider the rules for the future then. I'm not sure what "legal ramifications" have to do with this. I don't really consider elections to be anything much more than "mob decides who gets a slightly bigger toolset and some power to settle disputes". Seems like a baseless accusation of conflict of interest to me, especially since it's otherwise vague. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would only be an issue if it were the RMF board members. Even then, I don't see why there'd be no reason to disallow particular people. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your second statement is difficult to understand since you made three negatives. I'm just for some nominee quality control though (with the quality control minimizing potential collective bias back-slapping of course). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

i love the 'legal ramifications' bit. as if the courts give a shit how forum moderators are selected. lol FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 12:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

i love the bit where someone asks a question that could be answered with 'no that doesnt apply' but instead is answered with 'lol,troll'. how very edifying. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think baseless accusations of conflicts of interest need a serious response. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

To her credit, she elaborated when challenged. And to your credit, you addressed her elaboration even though she didn't directly answer your challenge. Peyre (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That's to be fair. AMassiveGay, I think you should tone down the callousness here. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

'I think you should tone down the callousness here' heres a thought, why dont you get a fucking grip? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to be polite and just pointing out that you're acting unnecessarily rude and condescending especially after the discussion has been made and I believe you have been misrepresenting my comments. I've made my case for why I acted a certain way and I think it's justified given the hostile tone (from the assumption of a conflict of interest; I don't like accusations being hurled like this). Your response to "maybe you're acting rude" is uncalled for and is not constructive; I'm not trying to be hostile, at least not as this point anymore. If you have a problem with my statement, do not lash back and use expletives. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You handled that with a bit more tact than AMG's comment warranted, Lefty. I'm starting to catch of whiff of in the air. Peyre (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on, am I the only one who saw through this blatant farce? KaileyM is in reality our local troll/vandal/stalker trying to stir up trouble. I only let the comment stand because it raised a valid point, however the person behind it is still a troll. Comrade GC (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

D'oh! Wasn't aware of the history. So what about this AMG character? Is he as massively gay as his handle suggests? A troll, or a sock? Peyre (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

for someone so concerned about trolling, you sure do like stirring up shit. i'll make it easy for you - go fuck yourself AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

This discussion is starting to go off-rails and doesn't seem to go anywhere constructive. Peyre, don't accuse AMassiveGay, a long-time user, as a troll. AMassiveGay, keep a cool head. GrammarCommie, improve your grammar ;). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Voting Eligibility

Currently, anyone that has been registered for 3 months and made 75 edits can vote. I propose some moderate restrictions. Only sysops should be able to vote, voters must have also been active in the past month, and no sysoprevoked voters. Thoughts? CorruptUser (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requiring sysopship is a bad idea, but autopatrolled might work. I don't have problems with the other requirements. Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 00:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions don't feel necessary to me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping someone from using old socks from screwing with the election... CorruptUser (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, then maybe change it to "X amount of edits over the past month" rather than just an absolute total of 75 edits. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to making voting open to sysops only. I'd still like to keep voting as open as possible without giving trolls too much opportunity to cause trouble. Maybe it should only be open to autopatrolled users who have been registered for at least 3 months, made at least 75 main space edits in total and who have made at least 1 main space edit in the past month. Spud (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone has ever made an extension that does that and I’ve no idea how easy it would be to code. Christopher (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

i'm not sure what the problem with the existing criteria is so why change it? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Voting system

Are we all satisfied with continuing to use the single transferable vote system? If anyone's interested, I wrote an essay proposing an alternative system. CowHouse (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Any idea what the results would have been with instant-runoff voting? —Kazitor, ^pending 02:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, instant-runoff voting is better if you're electing one person, rather than six. Basically, it's too focused on the first choice preferences. For example, you were only ranked first by one voter but sixteen placed you in their top six. Whereas Pbfreespace3 was ranked first three times but only seven voters ranked them in their top six.

To answer your question, I don't know what the results would have been with IRV. CowHouse (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

True, fair point. Without looking into it much, your proposal seems fine. I wonder if it can be automated? It would be very nice if the election extension could actually determine the results itself. —Kazitor, ^pending 03:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Automation does seem to be the main problem. Manually counting the votes is only feasible as long as there are a relatively small number of votes and candidates. CowHouse (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So did you come up with that system yourself, or does it have a name, or...? —Kazitor, ^pending 03:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I did come up with it myself, but there's probably a similar system that already exists. CowHouse (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

After some research, it appears to be very similar to the Kemeny–Young method. CowHouse (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that STV seems far too focused on first votes. I support changing the method to something more likely to put me in the top six with greater emphasis on other preferences. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Mod Abilities

As is, PB3 is still Sysoprevoked. In the event that PB3 does become a Mod, what rights and abilities shall zhe receive?CorruptUser (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to admit this PB3 should receive full Mod status if their number comes up. Comrade GC (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

PB3 should receive immediate Chicken Coop status upon becoming mod. Bongolian (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The best part is, J. Zoia was actually one of my socks, I nominated PB3 for moderator, and therefore, I am the one who started all of this shit. Guess who I am? KMasters (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC) [Hint: My name starts with a "G" and ends with a "P"]\

My guess is Grawp. PBfreespace (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

While I've been trying to let this play out on its own, I have to interject after Bongolian's comment. I am not very happy with people who think I should be thrown into the chicken coop for becoming a mod. I decided to run in this election mainly because of preferential behavior like this, and the cliquishness and exclusion which inevitably arise from it. It's not healthy for an online group to be cleansing users who are seen as bad based on user's opinions. RationalWiki shouldn't be a community where people with different opinions are cast out and jeered at for being unpopular. Consistent and deliberate rule violation is one thing, and we've banned many people who fit that category, but it's something entirely different to be banning certain users from elections because they aren't liked. Besides, that's what elections are for. Limiting candidacy (or franchise for that matter) based on sysoprevoke status or prior ban history is akin to banning anyone found guilty of any crime from seeking elected office. The point of the election is to weed people like that out, with the idea that they will be elected or not elected based on popular trust. Why insert additional barriers to candidacy when the opinion of the voting population should be the most effective barrier in the first place? If we use sysoprevoke as a barrier to candidacy, then sysoprevoke will basically become a checkbox that says "disenfranchised", just like authoritarian nations where opposition candidates are found "disqualified" by some arbitrary rule. We all know why they're really being disqualified, but all those in charge have to say is "oh they're sysoprevoked, so obviously they shouldn't be able to run in elections". This kind of restriction is going to be abused, period. That's why I'm against it. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that your opinions are unpopular here. I agree with you on most everything I've seen you say, though I wasn't here for all of the drama with the Israel/Palestine and Clinton/Sanders debates. I've heard that they were pretty nasty from multiple sources, and I wouldn't want that kind of thing popping up again, especially not with a moderator since they're supposed to be the mediators in all of this. Maybe that's not why some other people oppose you, but that's my two cents. I can see where you're coming from with the danger of adding no sysoprevoke as a requirement, and anyway, we should really just make the voting system less convoluted so we don't need to add any kind of restrictions like that (outside of recent activity, which is fairly uncontroversial and seems obvious). Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 03:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

PB is trying to frame the current fracaso as a case of popularity and likability. That is ridiculous. Several winning candidates are not universally loved. But they are trusted. An overwhelming number of users do not trust PB as is totally obvious by recent comments by multiple users and the lack of votes for PB (most not even including him and most of the rest listing him last or second last). I'd offer that this lack of trust is because a series of toxic shenanigans and perceived vote stuffing (twice). It is not about popularity but fear of a user with tools using them for more shenanigans. and it is not merely a small clique who are fearful of this, but also an overwhelming majority. A popularity contest is not what it's about PB. I think chicken-cooping PB from the beginning is a terrible idea and I think it would be best to get over it, let him have the tools and watch closely how he handles them. Having said that, I'm sure some users would be far more receptive to this if PB would assure users here that he played no part in voting irregularities and that he's focused only on using the tools he will have carefully and constructively. 87.218.195.104 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I played no part in voting irregularities and I'm focused only on using the tools I might have carefully and constructively. PBfreespace (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's encouraging, @Pbfreespace3, but more importantly you can put your words into action by 1) making quality edits over an extended period and 2) trying to regain the trust of sysops so that they think you're deserving of being a sysop again. Bongolian (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't personally know you pbfreespace3, but I don't trust you fully because of your personal record, though if you show improvement, I'll change my mind. I had to take other users' words for it when they said you're not qualified. I don't think this is a matter of "inner clique" or whatever, I just probably trust people easily. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the above.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 03:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I voted for pbfreespace3

Just found this garbage fire now. Now you only have one "phantom vote" to account for. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Too late, we already counted those votes as valid. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It is good to hear that we have real people who voted for PB3, and yes, we have accepted the votes as valid by consensus. The election criteria for future elections still needs to be changed in my view. Bongolian (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware, as I did read through the above discussion. I just wanted to make my vote known seeing how contentious the issue is. At least 2/3 votes are real, which should put some minds to ease. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Figures. On hindsight, I still think it's rather silly it was contentious to begin with, given this is just for a position of "vice moderator" (that's how I call it). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

By itself, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought, but the similarity to last year's mod election alarmed me. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not aware of what election shenanigans happened last year or so on, nor do I follow the coop style drama. For example I did not know pb3 was sysrevoked when I voted for him. If it's anything like the usual coop drama however, I'd still be unconcerned. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Should I close the poll now?

-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 01:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's been adequate time for voting/opinions at this point. Bongolian (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

48-hour pause

This discussion hasn't been updated for two days now. What are the conlusions? What needs to be done, now that everybody who wanted to have their say has done so? I don't want this to just fizzle out like the last one did, with nothing changing until the next election, and the whole sorry cycle repeating itself. Wilder^Bicycle 20:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll implement the rules somewhere. If I can find them. The thing is, we probably need to do a better job at outlining this stuff. I had to sift through several links and found some voter eligibility rules at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Election booth. Where are the nominee qualifications? I think we should just overhaul RationalWiki:Moderator elections and include all important info in that page rather than spread everything apart. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Important subpages that are only linked in talk page archives are a pain. Anyway, I trust you to do the right thing. Wilder^Bicycle 20:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No wonder, I still don't understand fully how the process works. I'll perhaps work on a draft. It'll be something like this:

"At RationalWiki, "blah blah blah define who moderators are; talk about how moderator demotion undergo a special process"

"we hold moderator elections from time to time because... LeftyGreenMario doesn't know exactly why, so please fill that in"

"potential moderators are nominated by other users and here is a list of qualifications and maybe a date and source on where qualifications are approved just for future reference"

"voters then vote and here are voter qualifications"

"deadlines deadlines and also discussion is open about the results and crap and then at some point, someone can archive it or something"

Something like that. I can't work on right now tho, so hence the hasty shoddy message, but it's a start. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, good. The rules on elections should be described somewhere obvious, like on a help page, so that everyone who wants to know what the rules are can find them before an election starts. Coding the rules into the election process is also good.

Since some of the long-time major behind-the-scenes actors are becoming less active, and/planning to leave. It would be useful if some of the arcane or unwritten behind-the-scenes stuff (like running elections) got passed along to appropriate parties, @FuzzyCatPotato. Bongolian (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to make the election extension automatically count results, and I'd be willing to implement that (subtle hint). —Kazitor, ^pending 23:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian @Kazitor Yeah, I'm really glad to see Kazitor stepping up. Manual ballot processing and manual results are tedious, opaque, and error-prone. The only "behind the scenes" stuff David & I do is that David sets up the election (which Kazitor could hopefully do) & I process the votes (which shouldn't even be necessary). FuzzyCatPotato of the Offensive Mandates (talk/stalk) 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Poll results

* dons Mod Hat * 

1. Anyone who has been banned through coop or received the sysoprevoke penalty will be ineligible to run.

2. All candidates have to have been on the wiki for 6 months.

3. All candidates have to have made 300 edits by the time the election starts.

4. All candidates have to have edited at least 100 times in the two months before the election. -ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You know you don't have to use that template every time you say something, right? —Kazitor, ^pending 04:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't, if you check the Saloon it's not peppered with my mod hats.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you saw my question asking if I should close the poll that doesn't have a mod hat. Yeah I'm overreacting to this but still.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)