RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Campaigning

Archives for this page (edit)

Election of July 2011 By-election of September 2011 Election of December 2011 Election of July 2012 Election of December 2012 Election of July 2013 Election of November 2015 By-election of December 2015 Election of December 2016 Election of December 2017 Election of November 2018 Election of November 2019 Election of November 2020 Election of November 2021 Election of November 2022 Election of November 2023

You people know there are antonyms for the word "endorse" and "anti-endorse" isn't one of them? Right?

To name a few:

• censure
• disapprove
• oppose
• protest
• reject
• repel
• unauthorize

^{— Unsigned, by: Levi Ackerman / talk / contribs}

Some constructive criticism regarding some of these candidates

Vandalfighting at Rational-Wiki is like asset protection in a retail store, in a way. There's sensible people like FCP, Owlman, and Gerard who know how to effectively curtail nonsense. There's people like Reverend Black Percy who are okay at it. There's macho-men who are just looking for a fight, like JorisEnter or DiamondDisc, who WANT to aggressively run out and tackle people, occasionally making a bad stop. Then there's idiots like Pbfreespace3, who are abusive and have had their mop taken away, and they're kind of like has-been cops who were fired for excessive force but continue to try and play lawman, and at the same time, they're like the fat mall cop who yells idle threats like "I'm gonna find where you live and beat your ass," which could get him in trouble, at teenage shoplifters. How is this constructive? Hopefully, voters will realize there needs to be more mods like FCP, Owlman, and Gerard and less like Pbfreespace3 and JorisEnter. Of course, it's no skin off my nose if you guys elect idiots to the position. It would be entertaining for me, actually, to see the site melt down. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't intentionally look for fights.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That criticism was not entirely constructive. Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And then there are people who take the time to post, then claim they'd enjoy seeing their feedback wasted as the site dies.

"Hey, have some 'constructive' criticism. Oh, well, actually I'd prefer you ignore it, I don't care anyway." Thank you so much. B) talk 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Minimal protection of the campaign page?

I'm a bit in two minds about whether the lowest protection level of the campaign page (autoconfirmed users only) might be a good idea or not. The upside is that it would cut the BoNs who can't vote anyway from trying to derail discussions of candidate suitability with their trolling. The downside is that it will limit the input and could possibly prevent posts from editors under temporary censure. My view is that this minimal protection would probably be a good idea and if not used this time around, I submit it for consideration in next year's contest. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Funny, most of the stuff I've been posting from the Embarq IPs are not trolling, but just saying it as it is. There's been an influx of people with high testosterone and low penis size trying to make Rational-Wiki into something it's not. That's why most of the old guard is gone. Some people say "progress" but I say B.S., because it's like if Saks Fifth Avenue tried to buy out Dollar Tree and make it into a high-class store. It doesn't work that way, people would always see it as a cheap store, and people will always see Rational-Wiki as the snarky website it has always been. And it will always be a doxxy site, since "documenting" is part of the official mission statement, regardless of how many angry midgets try and say R-W doesn't welcome such behavior. 76.5.20.117 (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating my point... ScepticWombat (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The past visits the future

The fact that I don't recognize a single name here is probably great. Revenant (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverting anti-endorsements as rockford has been doing just because they got an anti-endorsement, is evidence this voting is a sham

Someone please put a stop to it or elect yourself all moderators because there's no show of broad disapproval allowed apparently FallisBestSeason (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally if there are elibigility requirements, they should be linked, but I didn't see any FallisBestSeason (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Read. And stop whining like a baby due to not everyone here being a shoe stan. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Eligible users is for policy votes. Endorsement polling is just indicating whether or not you think someone would do a good job. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)