RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Archive7

A thought

Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier to have all this (nomination, campaign, etc.) on one page? FuzzyCatPotato of the Pyrrhic Belemnites (talk/stalk) 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

in theory yes, in practice no because the page could get annoyingly long and a lot of campaign sections aren't very serious, which distracts from finding out who is running for an actual position. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A procedural question

We are electing four mods. Does each member have just a single vote? Or? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"via single transferable vote" seems to suggest as much, yup. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

We use a system known as Single transferable vote, in which you rank the candidates in order of preference, or not at all. RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results/Archive4 has a good example of how it works in effect. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's what that means. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Who can vote?

I haven't found a rule anywhere that says who can vote in Moderator elections, is it the same as who can vote in Coop cases? Does the voting booth know who is eligible and who isn't? Is there a registration page somewhere other than the RW board member voting registration page? Do we know how many potential voters there are? I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS! SolPyre (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this isn't a board o' trustees election, I guess it's just the top requirements that apply? *shrugs* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

According to this, anyone can stand but only eligible voters can vote. So technically Mikemikev could stand if he wanted. Bicycle^wheel 19:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean we should humor the obese hedgehog ant-eating thing? WalkerWalkerWalker 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably the portly tubulidentate can stand, according to the rules. Bicycle^wheel 21:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me I'm prolly not eligible to vote (just about 10 days short of 3 months here), so does that mean I should refrain from endorsements?---Mona- (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you get your 3 months in by the time voting starts you should be ok. If not, try voting on the final day and hope for the best. Bicycle^wheel 21:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to preemptively say go right the fuck ahead (besides, if that's ten short now you should/might be able to vote come elections), especially since some little fuck mimicing me already filed all manner of... Things all over this page. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm good. I found I'd actually joined on 8/13.---Mona- (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since it turns out that literally anybody can stand for mod, I suggest that in future elections only eligible users be allowed to stand. Bicycle^wheel 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Paravant is already enforcing that. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So for next time

1. Can we make the "eligible user" criteria formal, and
2. When should we have the election, and
3. Should we formally elect alts?

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dont be banned or vandal binned, have been here like 3 months, and be a sysop. Anything less isn't trustable whatsoever with mod powers, though neither are any of us. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I vote for that!

"Mods must not be banned or vandal binned, must be eligible users, and must be a sysop."

The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would agree with eligibility requirements minus sysop bit.
• Let's consider the alts question closer to the next election date, if we stick to a yearly schedule I would consider it highly unlikely that we lose 3 moderators but if I'm proved wrong by the next election I will change my mind.
• Let's offset the mod & board elections by 6 months (if we must have board elections).
• While we are shuffling deckchairs, a stretch goal would be to randomise the order in which candidates appear in the drop down voting list - I think there could be order effects at play in these elections (given the amount of candidates vs. votes). Only if someone has the technical know-how and interest. On that topic, one of the .blt files from this election was borked, if anyone thinks they might know how to fix it then please get in contact with me as it turns a ten minute job into a 4 hour job. Tielec01 (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We need to have atleast one more board election so we can have a board in the first place, since as I n oted before it's basically only David.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Trent is dictator for life on the board too, unless that has changed. What I'm subtly hinting is that maybe DG should just appoint people to the board. The board is real work, unlike moderating, and elections doesn't seem like the right approach to me. Tielec01 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)