RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)


We need to start the election for Ace McWicked's replacement. I'd recommend archiving all the stuff from the last election and opening nominations as soon as possible. Blue Talk 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

tmtoulouse should open up a page and ballots or whatever.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
We don't need that until the nomination/acceptace and campaigning periods are over. Blue Talk 20:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Well we should start nominating, shouldn't we? I made the pages last time, but I'm sick of being the one to step up first, kind of like Caligula Minus from Asterix--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
When should nominations end? Two weeks' time from now? Blue Talk 20:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I prefer one week, but I doubt that'll be the case.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It was actually one week last time, and I think we can use the same system. Blue Talk 20:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are we having an election now, although Blue took over under the previous vote. That smells like bullshit to me. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Because the next runner up declined, and people felt uncomfortable going even lower on the results ladder. Blue Talk 21:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What people? Why does it matter what whoever chimed in when whoever raised this issue thinks? What's the cutoff for "going even lower on the results ladder"? There was a vote for this round of moderators. I object to another. So far the reasoning in support of this one is bullshit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion occurred here you whiny little brat--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll happily resign and stand for election if it makes you feel better, Nutty, but you're the only one who's raised any objection. Blue Talk 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for popping up to let your winning personality shine. You're an inspiration, Brxbrx. I'm so impressed with all the quality hard-hitting analysis of the issues you've given again and again. You're a true intellectual giant. You obviously have the site's best interests in mind and definitely don't go out of your way to cause trouble and carry on your months long vendetta. Blue, you got my objection. If there's going to be an election, Ace and P-Foster's seats should be voted on. If there's not, the people have already spoken and there's an obvious order of succession that led to you being seated and should leader to others in order. Nobody's given any good reason to let you be seated while others get arbitrarily cut out despite having been voted in. Avoiding "going even lower on the results ladder" without even bothering to justify this arbitrary choice is unfair bullshit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I lost the vote by a very small amount, small enough that the moderators felt comfortable offering me the position. They felt uncomfortable offering the position to someone they perceived might not be as legitimate due to their lower vote-getting. Keep in mind that there is no official moderator succession policy. No authority was overreached when the replacement consensus was formed. If you think that's unfair, you ought to take it up at Community Standards or All Things In Moderation, to try and get an official policy. Blue Talk 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It's arbitrary nonsense and the moderators lack any authority to decide what you claim they did. Looks to me like a very different discussion than you're recounting anyhow. There being no moderator authority to effect a long-term policy like this, I wonder how the lack of a succession policy nonetheless led to you being seated. I don't object to you as a moderator in principle. I object to an arbitrary cutoff that disregards the prior vote and others' legitimate expectancy in being seated if those with more votes become unable or unwilling to serve. If somehow we had 2 people rethink their decision to run immediately after the election we wouldn't have a do-over. We shouldn't have a do-over now when nothing material hass changed. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
"In principle," I agree with you. I think we need a succession policy that is voted upon by the community, and that should have happened before we needed to address these resignations. Like I said, I'm considering stepping down to make this election more legitimate. My reservations are purely practical - only one person in this democracy-mobocracy-whatever-the-hell-we-are-now has objected. Blue Talk 04:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm totally unimpressed with this crew's regard for fairness but I'm the only one objecting to several outrages so I must be wrong. Why bother trying to come up with a fair policy instead of just making shit up as you go along. At least you're not following me around to shit on me, so there's that. Brxbrx, who always brings so much of substance to any discussion with his strong insights, inspiring sense of fairness, real depth of analysis, and his powerful intellect, has me convinced with his fabulous argument. I must be a whiny brat. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
About time you admitted it--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
You are such a delight, Brxbrx. I'm sure others are just as pleased you came over from ED to share your charm and wisdom with all of us. Well, not the oldfags and veterans. They're awful people. You say so much of such profound value and your mainspace edits are so marvelous that I can't imagine why so many people think you're a noxious shit who contributes 0 of any worth here. I sure enjoy whenever you slither out from under your rock to regale me with your kindness and fellowship. I will always treasure our friendship. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
y u mad, though?--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Brx, I'm not mad at all. I'm giving you every opportunity to show yourself to be a troll. And you're succeeding marvelously. I'd give you a hug if you were here :) Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how you got "you're the only one who objected" to mean "you're wrong," especially after I explicitly stated I agreed with you. Blue Talk 04:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Step down and stand for election, if you want. We'll make it two mods and a standby instead of one mod and a standby - it wouldn't take any extra effort at all.
Nutty, it's great that you're keeping tabs on all this and noting that there seems to be a basic unfairness. But surely you can see that when she lost by such a tiny margin, it seems perfectly reasonable to bring her in on an ad-hoc succession sort of thing. I mean, this new election already seems pretty early, would we have wanted to do this less than a month after the first one? I can't be the only one getting sick of rules and elections and whatnot - not their existence, merely their frequency. So of course we brought her in. But then after Ace quit, it was pointed out that it was just something we threw together for Blue, and it probably shouldn't stay in place. So we're having an election, and then we'll have to figure out that actual rules for future suggestions.
Hence my objection to the arbitrariness of it all. You don't object because you're sick of rules and elections and whatnot. Nice. I never wanted any of this bullshit, but if this is what this community wants it should be done fairly. But no, you guys would rather sate your lusts for drama and blood and push paper around pretending you're doing something worthwhile. — Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs
The problem is not that you're pointing these things out - you have a good point. It's just that you seem to be emotional and ascribing some sort of vicious injustice here, talking about outrages. A lot of it might be the simultaneous conflict with Brx. But people are just trying to marry fairness with practicality, which is an entirely reasonable thing to do.--ADtalkModerator 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm outraged because you guys are shitting on fairness. I don't think you're doing it intentionally. I think you're doing it because as a group you're slovenly and lazy. Brxbrx has nothing to do with this. I made my points before he showed up to spew his typical verbal diarrhea in perpetuation of his juvenile vendetta. He contributes nothing to any discussion he participates in. He hasn't influenced any point I wished to make. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not think we are "slovenly and lazy." We're just trying to find the middle path between excessive legalism and practical fun. Certainly it's never going to be perfectly fair or exactly just, but this is just a goddamn website. It's not like there's a systematic point of view being thrust upon reality, widespread oppression of dissent, or the like. No one just wanted to have a huge vote immediately after the last one, and now we're recognizing that we couldn't just do the same thing again.
What fairness is being shit upon - the right to succeed to a position of vague authority by the next-most-preferred candidate rather than have a vote? Or was it the community's right to elect a new mod when Blue came in? I respect your concerns and think they're valid points, but there's also a need for some perspective here.
This isn't an outrage - it's an exceedingly minor injustice that we're actually taking steps to correct. When you rant about sating lust for drama and then snark about pushing around paper, it makes you seem a little out of touch with the real scale of what we're talking about.
What is it that you want? We're having a vote now. Do you want to censure the people who agreed to just let Blue succeed initially? Do you want to vote on a method of succession? If we're just pushing paper and satisfying lusts for drama, then come sweeping in heroically and do something.--ADtalkModerator 05:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the most expedient resolution is that Blue resign her seat, as she has offered to do, and this upcoming by-election be for two moderators instead of one. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have effected my resignation, and I'll stand for election. Blue Talk 06:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Electoral System[edit]

First past the post or Alternative Vote (aka Instant Runoff)? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(Jegus, I thought that said "Alternian Vote" for a second.) I'd be for Instant Runoff. Blue Talk 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Aren't we using the same system as last time?--ADtalkModerator
How about two rounds decided on simple majority? Works well enough, except when you end up having to choose between Lepen and Chirac--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be a bit silly to use an STV system to elect one position. Blue Talk 21:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it makes sense. The old I-want-to-vote-for-Nader-but-don't-want-to-throw-the-election-to-Bush scenario. It'll also be much easier to count. DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What makes sense? My idea, STV, or something else?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Blue argued that STV doesn't make sense for one position, but I was trying to point out that it actually does. As it seems like we're trying to keep this as much like the previous vote as possible, STV seems the way to go (though it wasn't my preferred method last time). DickTurpis (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently we'll be electing a stand-by as well, in case someone else resigns. Bad idea imho, as it just complicates things. -- Nx / talk 21:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
STV when there's only one post is the same as AV (IR). See wp:Single_transferable_vote#Terminology. There was some moaning were some concerns last time that the electoral system wasn't clearly defined in advance, so I thought I'd better check. AV suits me fine. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


So as far as I can see the best approach is to elect two mods and one stand-by this time around, via STV/AV. Are there any objections to that?--ADtalkModerator 07:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Moderator recalls[edit]

Can we vote to recall moderators? I'm tired of some people. steriletalk 16:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Me too, although that's probably not the same ones. But if somebody comes up with it there should be high rate until we can do it. Nutty might start to whine about not being enough again... --ʤɱ libertarian 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Not enough users that is, I have no clue if he does the other thing too. --ʤɱ anti-communist 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've express concern about fairness. You and your friends whine. And seem to have a bad habit of bringing me up out of the blue. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
And I think you have point with expressing that. Also I hope that people agree here because I wouldn't want to recall a mod with a 20/19 vote. I was mentioning you as side joke to avoid butthurt, apparantly I've caused some. --ʤɱ kant 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Naa, you and your buddies just look like assholes bringing me up all the time is all. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever... --ʤɱ federalist 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest instead of recalls, we have a sort of (i'd say 6 months, but that might be simply waaayyy to short for actual reasonable work) re-elections? Two reasons this would be important. 1) a site wide eval of "how did the mods in group work. what were the problems. do we want to give them (as a group) more powers, less powers. Are we seeing overall egos going up or down, are we seeing more troll conflicts, less conflicts, etc. and then 2) now that we know what mods could be doing, should be doing and aren't doing - let's elect again, and see how things stand. Communities change. we should not have the same mods for a long period (especially when it's such a new concept), without a chance to say "she's doing great", "he, however, sucks". And we really really really need to revisit the job of mods - in detail, after 6 months or so, to see if it's succeeding and how we can improve it.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(and by the way, I think i've told you that my real - life job as a research paralegal is put on hold every 2 years cause we are 'loaned out' to the County to do election stuff). I say that cause recall elections are really ugly. they are not just saying "someoen is better than you at the job", but that you, personally, suck and should be fired. I'd not want to see that here, ever. even if someone is not my favorite choice for a mod - they can do their best for one year, and we won't elect them again. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
We already have that. The term is 6 months. -- Nx / talk 19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. i returned exactly the week you were voting, and got caught up in the hype, but didn't see all the views and decisions. so yeah, no recalls if it's 6 months. Hell, i lived with Bush for 8 years. ;-) — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs 19:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually: Forum:Moderators#Removal -- Nx / talk 19:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
We can recall moderators, but only by community vote. See the wikilink Nx posted. Blue Talk 19:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not a recall as it's dependent on the moderator abusing something. What if they didn't abuse their powerz? Furthermore, what if they did, but the majority of moderators supported it? Very non-democratic (or parlimentarian), and somewhat authoritarian, actually. It could be a stranglehold for six months. steriletalk 23:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. But it does seem rather authoritarian. steriletalk 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


It's the 13th, the page says nominations ended on the 12th, when does the election start? -- Nx / talk 07:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I will be the election judge again, as per precedence, so I will get things rolling shortly. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I've locked myself out of the server since I'm running in the election, but I still know the root password from the shared google docs thing. -- Nx / talk 07:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Two mods and one alternate, I think it was settled.--ADtalkModerator 07:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


As I mentioned before, I'm not sure a single alternate is going to solve our succession problem, and I fear we're just kicking the can down the road and opening ourselves up to another brouhaha like this in a couple months' time. With the casualty rate of mods so far, it doesn't seem too unlikely that we will have to replace more than one before the next election. It would be really nice to have a procedure in place before that happens. I guess the most likely possibilities would be a second or even third alternate, or an unfilled vacancy and reduction in the number of moderators until the next election cycle. Or perhaps some other option. Whatever it's going to be, it should be decided beforehand, as I think Nutty had a good point in the arbitrariness of the succession of Blue but not the next few runners up. I guess as an election issue of sorts this can fall under the jurisdiction of the mods, which strikes me as better than having another goddamn vote. So, in the event of a second vacancy, what do we do, have second alternate (a third too?)? Leave it unfilled? Another election? I guess this gets handed over to the mods to decide, unless there are serious objections. Take it away, moderators. DickTurpis (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the mods and I remain surprised that a mere 5 or 6 months after things started going south that people are so eager to give up their own hand in deciding things like this. Mods can bootstrap procedures to enable the community to operate where the absence of some minor procedure could be a big deal. But please please please don't hand the mods control of something that should absolutely be the community's decision and had been for 4 years. Please please please resolve the issues of (a) coming up with a rubric for what kinds of votes can be held under what circumstances, how to count votes, franchise, etc.; and (b) what the order of succession should be or whether entirely new elections should be held (a wasteful exercise that ignores the voice of voters in the prior election). Mods are going to basically be fungible unless and until the community develops a consensus for understanding their role. I may very well be held to be wrong in my assessment of our role by a majority of the community if a consensus emerges that you want mods to be leaders. The same with what I view as more doctrinaire application of things like the MC "rule." But until that happens I dearly wish this community would get down to the basic tasks at hand before complicating things any more with yet another vote without appropriate guidance and that doesn't give adequate consideration of fairness to candidates in the prior election. We should have people brainstorm what the appropriate criteria and concerns are and then figure out some basic process and solutions. And those are about the only rules I think we'll ever need. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the mods (at least some of them) decided we would have a new vote for 2 mods and one alternate. Doing that, it seems they would have the powers to change it to 2 mods and 2 alternates, if they so desired, and if it is done in a timely fashion. I guess with the vote about to start it might be getting too late for that, but this is not the first time I've brought this up. If we want to make is a community decision, that's fine, but it still seems like it should be the mods who set up a formal proposal or whatever. I just would like the issue of a further vacancy to be decided sometime prior to that vacancy existing, for once. Otherwise there's a decent chance we're just going to be having this exact same argument in a few months. DickTurpis (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Lol 2 mods decided how it was going to go down. I'll go along with it because I'm not interested in making that much trouble beyond voicing my objection, but I'm pretty pissed that I didn't notice that kind of bullshit getting forced by fiat. I'm not seeing enough reference to the job description as written, just a lot of handwaving and hokum. Show me where in the mod's job description "[setting] up a formal proposal or whatever" is within their mandate. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I'm just trying to avoid the hassle of a weeklong vote to do something like effectively change the phrasing of the current proposal from "and one alternate" to "and two alternates" or something. Maybe I should just do it, as it seems it seems like I have as much authority as the mods in matters such as this. DickTurpis (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep. You do. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the exact job of moderators has always been a bit vague. To "help boot-strap certain policies or procedures" doesn't adequately specify where they can and can't make some decisions on these procedures, while part about the deciding "what should even be voted on" could easily be applied to this vote and specifics about further vacancies. I thought it best those decisions be made prior to the start of the actual vote, and certainly prior to the results. (Though I don't see how whether we're electing one alternate or two can effect how people vote.) The main job of the moderators is to moderate, but anyone can do that. DickTurpis (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)