RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results/Archive9

Election of December 2016: Results

Results

Hi. I'm FuzzyCatPotato, the returning officer. Because nobody else stepped up to help, David Gerard and I handled the results.

TL;DR

There may have been some shenanigans. Please vote here.

The known mods (5/6) are:

• Bongolian
• David Gerard
• FuzzyCatPotato
• Weaseloid
• Reverend Black Percy

The known replacements (1/2) are:

• CheeseburgerFace

Process

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:2016 board of trustees election/Results

The STV vote counting process is described in detail here. It's not necessary to read it to understand this election.

You can find all documents, commands, and the OpenSTV program here.

Mods2017-1Base.blt

This is the raw file provided by RW.

Mods2017-2Regex.blt

Removed the leading user ID number, which OpenSTV reads as a weighted vote.

Initial run (with -2Regex.blt)

This run was odd, because Avengerofthe BoN was immediately elected, despite having little popular support. (No offense meant.) I suspected shenanigans.

Winners are Avengerofthe BoN (Mod), Bongolian (Mod), CheeseburgerFace (Replacement), David Gerard (Mod), DiamondDisc1 (Replacement), FuzzyCatPotato (Mod), Weaseloid (Mod), and Reverend Black Percy (Mod).

Shenanigans

5 ballots voted for (1st) Avengerofthe BoN, (2nd) Pbfreespace3, and (3rd/4th) Rational1/Applesauce, etc. Again, given the low public support (no offense meant), this suggested shenanigans.

1 1 10 13 2 4 6 9 14 3 8 0
1 1 10 13 2 4 6 9 14 3 8 0
1 1 10 13 2 4 9 6 8 14 0
1 1 10 13 2 4 8 9 14 3 0
1 1 10 9 13 2 4 3 6 8 14 0

David looked up the user IDs for each of these ballots. The user ids were:

• 5305, Conscience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)
• 75, E.Wig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log) (a Nutty Roux account)
• 6201, Nate Keaton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)
• 3080, Étienne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)
• 2747, Nutty Roux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

There are a few possibilities here:

1. Each of these five users [1] independently came to the conclusion that Avenger, Pb3, and Rational1/Applesauce were the best candidates for the job; and [2] despite 3 of 5 of these users not having been active in over a year (Nate, Étienne, Nutty), each voted at about the same time on the first day of the elections.
2. These users colluded to vote this way.
3. These users are Nutty Roux socks.

I seriously doubt option 1. Both option 2 and option 3 suggest that someone or someones hoped to rig this election (with a small amount of success).

In light of that, I created Mods2017-3Nutty.blt and ran the election a second time.

Mods2017-3Nutty.blt

This ballot includes only the first of the 5 ballots listed in "Shenanigans".

Second run (with -3Nutty.blt)

This one more closely aligns with the "endorsements" section.

Winners are Bongolian (Mod), CheeseburgerFace (Replacement), David Gerard (Mod), DiamondDisc1 (Mod), FuzzyCatPotato (Mod), Weaseloid (Mod), CorruptUser (Replacement), and Reverend Black Percy (Mod).

Comparison of winners

With all of the noted ballots:	With 1 of the noted ballot:
Avengerofthe BoN (Mod) Bongolian (Mod) David Gerard (Mod) FuzzyCatPotato (Mod) Weaseloid (Mod) Reverend Black Percy (Mod).	Bongolian (Mod) David Gerard (Mod) DiamondDisc1 (Mod) FuzzyCatPotato (Mod) Weaseloid (Mod) Reverend Black Percy (Mod)
CheeseburgerFace (Replacement) DiamondDisc1 (Replacement)	CheeseburgerFace (Replacement) CorruptUser (Replacement)

Vote

This is supposed to be a democratic election, not one where a current moderator decides the results. As such, I'd like to put the final results of this election up to (yet another) vote:

Include all of the noted ballots

1. The people who got elected should get elected. Doing the election via non-secret, public endorsements creates a massive conflict of interest, namely that users will vote "how you're supposed to vote" rather than how they actually would like to vote. Applesauce (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   How many times will you attempt to vote in this election? Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   Secrecy in defense of ballot stuffing is not a virtue, Applesauce. Bongolian (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   To Hipocrite: I'm not Étienne, Nutty Roux, or E.Wig. To Bongolian: I agree with you. Maybe they are ballot-stuffing. But how do we know? The accounts were created far apart, for one. We don't do IP checks as far as I've been told, so what can we do? Applesauce (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

2. I've been arguing for checkuser for over a year, but have ran into a wall. We need to be fairly sure this is a rigging. The only way for us to have closure here is to use checkuser. If their IPs are all very similar, there you go. If they're not, you can still vote to disinclude them, but we at least deserve to know if they're connected. Hell, the mods could check it themselves and use it to come to a conclusion for all I care. Until then it's just not right to strike people's votes because "It could be voter fraud". PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   Go to hell with your CheckUser Pb3. Like HRC, you just lost an election rigged in your favor. People here do not support your ideas. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

3. The results look very fishy (very very fishy) but us voting, then having the same voters vote on whether to include some votes, which some of the losing candidates claim are fishy (yet unproven) is a bizarre rendering of democratic voting no? Yikes. Work out a method first on how to demonstrate the sockpuppetry (for this case and all future cases) as well as how to deal with problems and then apply it and demonstrate there was sock puppetry. Otherwise you just have some of the voters (through a strawpoll) make an ad-hoc decision disenfranchising some voters because they really believe there has been trickery...which would be a frightening way to deal with voting problems if this were any other election. ShabiDOO 00:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Obviously I support an election that is not tampered with by the powers that be. I ran for moderator mostly so I can get out of the bin and stop the epidemic of ideological bans that has taken over this wiki. Now my run for moderator has come to symbolize a new hope. I will hope to prove worthy of the secret ballots cast for me. Or at least those ballots should have been secret, before the powers that be tried tampering with the vote. Now if you are in favor of a fair wiki without ideological bans, what do you have to fear from me being moderator? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   "Obviously I support an election that is not tampered with by the powers that be." Ironic since there is strong evidence that you tampered with the election. How is it that a candidate with 1 endorsement and 11 anti-endorsements won overwhelmingly? That 1 "endorsement", was " because I won't let this one be hated more than Pb." — not very glowing it would seem, especially since that sockpuppet (likely yourself) only joined on January 1. You managed to piss off people who didn't even give a rat's ass about the Israel/Palestine pages. Go away. Bongolian (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Avengerofthe BoN isn't any of the accounts listed above which are old guard editors from the early days of the site. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   He's referring to ballots 49083 and 51721. Yes, AOTB attempted to tamper with the election. No, it didn't affect anything. Without Nutty et al's support, he'd have lost. Badly. FuzzyCatPotato of the Dumb Angels (talk/stalk) 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Bongolian, that sockpuppet is of someone way more awesome than Avenger. Actually, that sockpuppet initially anti-endorsed Avenger, but changed when that horse's ass Pbfreespace3 used a BoN sock to endorse himself. Pbfreespace needs to just discover how comforting a nice cup of hot antifreeze is on a cold winter day. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   "Without [voter] support, he'd have lost." Nice one. ħuman 18:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   "Without [5 long-dead accounts that are either sockpuppets or malicious actors] support, he'd have lost." Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Include 1 of 5 of the noted ballots

1. It seems obvious to me that [Nutty Roux] and/or [Nutty Roux and his friends] attempted to skew the results of this election by using multiple accounts to vote the same way. It is my belief that Avengerofthe BoN is a sockpuppet-creating drama-causing ideology-pusher that no patriot supporter of RationalWiki should support. It is extremely unlikely that these ballots were legitimately cast by separate users in good faith. (Side note: I haven't discussed the fact that Avengerofthe BoN also attempted to vote multiple times in this election, in ballots 49083 and 51721. It didn't affect the results.) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Rather than be subjected to the results of Putinesque vote rigging, we need to 1) not accept this behavior and reject the ballot stuffing immediately 2) demop all ballot stuffers (by fiat or chicken coop) ASAP and 3) Revise voting rules to prevent or at least deter a repeat of this behavior. Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Include 0 of the 5 noted ballots if possible. Proud to have been at the bottom of the scamalots voting. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible signal that Avenger and his sox should just go away. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Skewing an election shouldn't be tolerated.—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Skewing sucks, vote accordingly.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   In case you need a reminder, this vote also determines whether I become a moderator or Avengerofthe BoN becomes a moderator.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

7. I thought E.Wig was dead. Dead people voting, typical Chicago politics. I agree with Hipocrite for once, the first time, ever. nobs 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   I keep wondering about that account as well. I thought it was a sock of TK. (And in another remarkable turn of events I share the same concern as Nobs) --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   Nutty Roux had some email correspondence with TK back in the day. I guess he could have shared the E.Wig login details? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

8. This episode shows the need to have the elections conducted by users who are not candidates. Also, perhaps a 25 edits in the last year activity requirement should be instituted to make it hard to create voting socks. Hclodge (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   I completely agree as does Fuzzy (I kept my role strictly technical here, supplying the returning officer with data), but the trouble is that 0 other people volunteered - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

9. It's a democraric duty to contest election results that may have been affected by fraud, and it's reasonable here to use a standard of evidence less than metaphysical certitude - Rationalwiki is just a Web community after all. And trolls ruin enough things as it is. Weorthe (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
10. The evidence of vote rigging is overwhelming.-Blue Eyes White Dragon (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Support only including one of the ballots. Bootmii(Nomic) 05:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Goat

• A previous mod election managed to get MarcusCicero elected. Also, a recent non-internet election gave us a winner we were all laughing at for months before. Democracy will give us the occasional Charlie Chaplin impersonator, I'm afraid... Bicycle^wheel 20:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't give in to bullying by sock puppets, it just encourages them. Bongolian (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[EC] @Bicycle Wheel: That's true. But here, it's not just "democracy is flawed" -- it's pretty clear that some democracy-rigging occurred. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• You pretty much invited somebody to do this when you posted this comment, Fuzzy. (No offense meant.) Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

We were so close to rigging the election -- and then we disclosed everything publicly. Next year? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Even if we fix this through a basic bit of forensics this time, it doesn't take much more effort to register a few dozen more socketpuppets, get them up to bare-bones passing for voting rights, and hide the vote-manipulation signal under more a dash more noise next year. This may be a wakeup call on checkuser. Sadface. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nx did this before. BTW did you guys just tell everyone who the named users voted for? Good to know that you can look up someone's votes at any time you damn well please. Jesus Christ, this place has descended into a parody of itself. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and with the exception of Conscience, there's no way those accounts are socks of Nutty Roux. Even Conscience I'm not sure about. However, it's definitely possible that crew got together with some of their old accounts and conspired to stack the election. Once upon a time that wouldn't have mattered because mods used a very light touch and were held to account by the community. I guess times change, and now RW argues about who gets the great honour of being demoted to moderator. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

RE naming names: In real life, people get named (and their vote gets publicized) for voting twice. We think voter fraud happened here

RE looking up names: With our current operation of OpenSTV, you're correct (unfortunately) that we can look up names. If you'd be willing to write a new extension... :)

RE socks: E.Wig is a confirmed Nutty sock (same email, same interests). Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

RE naming names: I'm sympathetic that you need to be transparent with the community but you should have sought consensus before looking up people and naming them.

RE looking up names: The issue is connecting names to votes. Voter fraud is caught by recording who has voted; not who has voted and who they voted for. This is a horrible precedent to set and will further reduce confidence in moderator elections. Secret ballots are a cornerstone of most elections, and you have violated that trust.

RE socks: I have no reason to doubt you and the email evidence is damning (shared interests is a fatuous argument IMO). E. Wig may be a Nutty sock, but I still feel that more than one person was involved. Never the less I retract my statement, I was under the impression that Nutty left here permanently. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

RE naming names: In retrospect, obtaining consensus would have been better. I felt that fraud was so apparent that something needed to be done. Because nobody volunteered as returning officer, we got stuck with my (well-known) rash community judgement.

RE looking up names: Unfortunately, with the current extension, there was no alternative. I had to point out the ballots, or it wouldn't be clear why I felt fraud was involved (so the votes had to be made public). Given that the ballots are identical, naming any of the names tells you who they voted for. And if no names are named, the case for fraud appears weak (or people who wrongly blame Avenger). Again: should have got consensus. If you'd like to write an extension that sequesters metadata (maybe IP, email, UTC, and username) and ballot, we'd be more than happy to implement it. Unfortunately, we have a drought of modern Nx's. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In the future, it should at least mention on the voting page that it's not a secret ballot. ಠ_ಠ Hmmph (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to point it out: 52132 and 48566 are identical, and right after each other in the list. 51721 and 49083 differ by one vote, which is at least as much as the proposed votes-to-be-rejected. There is also run of five identical positions (31715 and 47281), which seem unlikely by chance. Pfffft (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I never did like Nutty Roux. Figures he would favor Pbfreespace3, I'm surprised he didn't make Pb3 his number one pick. On the other hand, he's probably just being a smart alack rather than trying to create malice, because that's what this wiki used be all about. MarcusCicero was once a mod, and I think Avenger will do less damage than Pbfreespace3 would do. Embarq BoN Person (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• This may be an argument for some more stringent criteria for who can vote, e.g. a certain number of edits within the last six months or something. That would likely cut down on the number of qualified sock voters. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  I've apparently had an account on here for almost 4 years, with a few hundreds edits, and I still feel like a newbie and don't know who all the people are and what their drama is. Increasing the number of edits required to vote seems like an obvious good idea. Hmmph (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• As for whether to include the possible sock votes or not, I have thought about it and I doubt it will make much of a difference in the end. Why? Because if AotB becomes a mod, he will in all likelihood either be unable to rein in his tendency to war with everyone and quickly lose his mod hat (the most likely scenario, IMO), or he will behave and/or keep a low profile, in which case, no harm no foul. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Do we even have a process for taking an absolute disaster off the mod-rolls? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  I honestly haven't checked and thus don't know, but a coop case in case of misbehaviour ought to do the trick even without an already established process, followed by passing the mod hat to the top alternate/runner up. A coop case would also require a public show of (lack of) support, indicating how many editors are actually (dis)satisfied with having AotB as a mod. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think we should honor the actual results of the election as held, and then spend some time addressing how any flaws that may exist in the system can be mitigated in the future. This might be considered a "count all five" vote in the above section, I suppose, if a tie-breaker is needed in this non-secret, highly politicized "vote". ħuman 18:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What do the rules say?

Do the rules governing moderator elections address the issue of people owning multiple user names? (If that was indeed the case here.)

Do the rules address the issue of political factions agreeing in private on a slate of candidates?

Do the rules address the issue of people voting the same way?

The first question is the serious one, the latter two are food for thought. ħuman 18:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of these issues are (or were) under discussion in the Saloon Bar. Unfortunately, this discussion began after the nomination process was already under way, which was a sloppy way of doing things, & it hasn't led to anything being changed this time around.

The votes for Avengerofthe BoN appear to have been swung by accounts which haven't edited at RW for months or years. I haven't seen a rationale for accepting those votes which isn't some variation on "because technically there was nothing to stop them voting", whereas I think most people would agree on the general principal that moderators are selected by the RW community, & the community is made up of editors who use the site now rather than those who left the site years ago. The "rules" about voter eligibility are just a way of codifying this, & obviously need to be revised before any future elections. Votes from "retired" editors wasn't something we anticipated.

Giving Avengerofthe BoN moderator status isn't a viable option. He's been griefing the site for the last year & a half, & has been repeatedly desysoped & vandal binned on his various accounts because of this. It's been enough of a pain in the arse to deal with the many Chicken Coop cases this is involved, let alone anything he decides to do as moderator. If we'd talked properly about eligibility criteria before starting the nomination process (which we should have), I'm pretty sure we'd have decided that vandal binned users aren't moderator material & he wouldn't have been able to stand as a candidate. & If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no rules. That's why I handed this off to the community. Mobocracy and all that.

I've asked David if it's possible to alter the Eligible Users category such that only users with 75+ edits (or something) in the past year could vote. If so, then this would make great damn grounds for improvement. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ballot Challenges

I challenge the following ballots: 6413, 49083, 51721. Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I see I have somehow gleaned an already challenged pair. I challenge 6413. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No paper trails, unfortunately. It's troubling that the whole election can be thrown by one user who's intent on sockpuppeting beyond the background level. Regardless of whether that's happening in this case(but, come on, it totally is), there are some foundational problems with the trustworthiness of our electoral process. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, it's possible that these are all legitimate users who all voted at the same time for the same people. Maybe E.Wig is the center of a coordinated campaign of an anti-establishment silent majority. Or... maybe not. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems the alleged ballot stuffer(s) has not spoken up its own defense despite having the opportunity. We shouldn't wait too long to take action against them in my view unless the alleged stuffer(s) can come up with a convincing argument itself. Interfering with an election is serious matter and should be considered as serious as doxing, legal threats and harassment. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of you would be aware that many of the "old guard" took great delight in getting Karajou to run after every new user as a sock of DMorris(?). It's an easy way to kill a site; get everyone paranoid and tilting at windmills. Checkuser did very little to help CP BTW (in fact probably caused more damage) since it's so easy to get around (and so easy to mis-interpret). It's hilarious to see RW now in a very similar position, where every new user is a potential sock, certain votes get thrown away because they could be sock votes and others left in because... well god knows, the only criteria seems to be "votes that we think don't make sense go away". 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. While this isn't necessarily a political witch hunt, it's damn close. The close-to identical ballots are a problem, but there's really no way to be sure. So right now we have a choice between basically picking the people who got elected, or the people who the mods claim actually deserve to be in power. That's the choice we're facing here. Applesauce (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is really a test of principle: I fucking hate Avenger, but he ran for mod and enough autoconfirmed users voted for him that he reached the threshold. If it's really a huge problem it's not like he's a dictator and can't be dealt with. This is the ultimate test of principle for me, but let it be on the record that I supported the original vote without the ballots cast. PB (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Mate, if you haven't put one and one together yet: it seems that, if the speculation on this page is true, Avenger was a particularly good troll (maybe as good as MC). If you fucking hate him, the troll wins. Also if you fucking hate anyone who is an anonymous person on the internet you might want to disconnect your internet for a few days and drink a few beers. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well true. If Avenger oversteps his boundaries, he can be de-opped. That's not really the concern here, the concern is that there's potential rigging going on.—CheeseburgerFace  (talk • stalk) 03:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If AoB gets to be mod, I will immediately start a coop case against him and his socks to be perma-banned. This is not going to go away by caving into AoB. Bongolian (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User rights

I've given Bongolian & Reverend BP moderator rights, + removed them from previous mods Human, Sceptic Wombat & 142 guy. The vacant post (almost certainly DiamondDisc1) can wait till the vote above is over with. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

if socks can vote, I request that I be able to cast a vote. Will that kick out AOB? StickySock (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

When does this vote end?

-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

When Jesus descends from fucking heaven with an army of frogs and Thai prostitutes all named Steve behind him. Probuscus (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The vote will end when we determinate who RIGGED THE ELECTIONS !! FuzzyCatPotato was helped by russians who HACKED RationalWiki. And yes, Jesus will come with his frogs.

Forget the prostitutes; I want Jesus to come bless us with some Thai red curry! Peyre (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

More seriously, what I understood is that some people had two accounts to vote or something like that. Diacelium (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This vote better end soon or we'll never get anything done.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing the vote

* dons Mod Hat * 

It's been three full days. The vote is against inclusion of the ballots, 11-4. Zero of the accused users have shown up.

In short: DiamondDisc1 is mod; CorruptUser is replacement. Please shower them with verbal abuse and unfounded criticism here and here.

There are many questions about how RationalWiki should conduct elections going forward. Direct your concerns to Forum:RationalWiki election process. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)