RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive2

Way back when, when I first made this section (it used to be a section), I didn't intend for it to be filled with gaudy posters taking up tons of screen. Can we please just keep it to a description of a candidate's position? It isn't absurd for voters to know a little about who they're voting for, and how they plan on behaving if elected, is it? I think RW has grown to a point where not everyone is familiar with each others' mannerisms.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you hate fun? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't hate fun. I hate having to scroll through a bunch of irrelevant .html just to see a little bit of text. Currently, it isn't a problem but I imagine others might post their platforms here, and if everybody does as Ace and Nutty, navigating the page could become very annoying.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why the poster section is at the bottom. Duh. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't even notice that. Thanks for pointing it out--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Tool. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 01:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be voting for the people I think will be serious and hands-on. I really have appreciated Blue getting active, and I think it's helped make things a little better around here. And I certainly have been trying to do that. I think it's important to have a balance of moderating styles, but until recently I felt like I was alone on one side of the spectrum, and everyone else was piled up on the other end. Also, I'm fucking tired.--^talk 05:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be curios what exactly it has "Made better". are more people posting? Have more edits been done? Have we fixed more broken links? Do we have more hits than before? Or is it just that "mc" (who ever that is, I wasn't around for that drama) is being "dealt with". And by the way, I'm not saying you shouldn't want someone who "steps in", i'm just saying I don't know what it has to do with the wiki. But again, my focus is not back room melodrama, it's how the wiki looks to the real world.En attendant Godot 02:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A reduction in drama, I suppose, if what I mean. Someone willing to step into the mess of burgeoning edit wars and HCM and try to defuse the situation. It's my impression that's what Blue had begun to do in the last couple of weeks, and I think it's a good thing.--^talk 05:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You and Blue need special icons to put in your sigs so people know you're the ones who are serious, hands on, and getting active. But seriously. You guys have a similar understanding of the job description that I think grossly distorts what was intended and what was actually written and I've yet to see any credible justification for it. You're overreaching. 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would actually argue that it is explicitly what moderators are supposed to do. When he inaugurated the system, Trent described the role of moderators as having the roles of "moderat[ing] the ton of discussions that have reached the point where they are no longer constructive but destructive [and] bootstrapping missing elements of site policy or procedure." This is reflected in the current job description. The notion that mods should be inactive and wait for problems to be brought to them actually doesn't seem to me to be the best approach to that. I recognize opinions may differ, though.--^talk 01:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Official endorsement

Let it be known that I, Reckless Noise Symphony, hereby officially endorse ListenerX for the open moderator position based on the fact that I think his more "hands-off" approach to being a moderator and viewing the moderator position as something of a referee is aligned with my own personal views on the position. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 10:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to vote for him too, I think. Too many other candidates are promising to change things, putting policies in place or making things more civil or other stuff - more like they're running for rulership of the wiki than moderator.--^talk 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AD, you might want to clarify that position, seeing as you yourself were responsible for galvanizing one of the biggest policy changes we've ever seen for talk pages. Blue (is useful) 23:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to clarify the rules as a user, but that's a good point - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I don't want to change the atmosphere of things, which would (I guess) be my main complaint.--^talk 00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So you like that blue is hands on, jumping in to do things "on her own", but think it's bad that people want to play rulership? Personally, I found blue's "jumping in" to be rather dogmatic and controlling. I don't like people who tell others what to do, or how to edit, etc., mods or not. But hey, what would I know, i'm just waiting around for Godot to get here.En attendant Godot 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Alas the princess is always in another castle. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WfG just won my heart. 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think mods should wait for people to bring them formal cases before they intervene (although of course if a case is brought, it should be addressed), which is what I meant. That's different an intention to reform the culture of the community. I was certainly unclear about the distinction, sorry.--^talk 00:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify any of that with a response, but I'd also like to endorse ListenerX. Blue (is useful) 23:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I want to address WfG's criticism. First of all, do try to learn capitalization. "Blue" is my username, "blue" is an abstract denotation of color. Second, I cannot comprehend why attempting to ensure that the community standards are not shat upon regularly is "dogmatic and controlling." I never told people how to edit - unless they were in direct violation of the standards. If you're running on a platform of "I'm not going to fulfill the moderator mandate, let's bring the wiki back to the no-rules wonderland of 2007," I think your vision for this site is woefully misguided. Blue (is useful) 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Get over yourself and go read the job description again. You're misunderstanding the role of moderators. If you or AD disagree, I invite you to debate me elsewhere on the wiki. I will teach you. 02:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotta say, that's why i have a problem with your attitude blue. I could care less if people call me "godot" or "waiting" or even "yo' shorty", cause really, i am just not that vested in the need to control people. I've watched you go onto other editor's pages and "remind" them "how we edit here". That's not needed, and it's not productive. the job of mod was NOT to "jump in anytime", in fact it was specifically to be use "rarely" and only "under extreme circumstances." You, blue, have an issue with acting on authority when you are just being an editor. you want to change the world? great. but your sense of authority in such a "i am a mod, so my way" is rather trying. I'm not perfect, that's why I'd not step in when not warranted. I WILL step in when the wiki is being fucked up, but not cause someone posted an edit in a way i disagreed with. To me, the best mods are ones who are comfortable with themselves and who don't really flaunt their position. That's not you, I have to say. But like i said, people won't vote for me if they want someone being a mommy hen. they will vote for you, and that's how it should be. that's what elections are about.En attendant Godot 02:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're blowing one single instance way out of proportion, I think, one that you must not have read through very carefully... But anyway.

You're not going to get rid of me or people like me, as much as you'd like to. I care about the project, you see. I have never done anything here to further personal ambitions - though people with weak arguments have accused me of doing so in the past. It's true that my dedication to RationalWiki has put me at the center of some HCMs, and I've LANCB'd two or three times. But I always have come back. So. You accuse me of "flaunting" my position. I honestly don't care. Just because there was a little silver brainstar next to my signature does not mean that everything I said was as a moderator. I don't shy away from informing people of my issues with them. If someone acts like an ass, I won't hesitate to give warnings or take them to the Chicken Coop. That didn't change when I became a mod, and it won't change if I'm elected. If I have to specify when exactly I'm "moderating," so be it, I will spell it out clearly. Otherwise, I am just editing as a normal user.

If I've ever said anything along the lines of "I'm a mod, my way," please remind me with a link or a quote. Blue (is useful) 04:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If I am elected moderator, I will set everything I say ex cathedra in some different color, so as to avoid confusion. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Blue (is useful) 04:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) To draw an analogy with the common-law legal system, a moderator is supposed to be like a judge, not a district attorney or a jury. If Blue or anyone else wants to make efforts to ensure the community standards are adhered to, that is excellent — we would benefit if a few more users did this — but moderator powers should not be used for that purpose. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I attempted that a few times - no one listened so I broke a few rules and resigned. But I will rise like a naked phoenix! Ace^ace 02:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

See, that's the problem, half the room is talking like there are these hard and fast rules, and others like they are only "guidelines' and a few who don't think any of them apply to anyone at any time. Again, I think you were back against the wall with this "mc" thing, and you all had to do some serious revamping. I just personally think it went too far, and the "mods" spilled out beyond that role, but really, the mob rules, and if the mob says "we want rules", then so be it.En attendant Godot 02:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a general disagreement on the nature of the rules. I think the current Standards vote demonstrates that... three very divergent options all have sizable numbers of adherents. The diversity of views from the mods also represent that, since they incorporate all of what you are saying.

Maybe I'm just a little disgruntled, WfG - I do feel like I was the one stepping in the most with recent edit wars/spreading conflicts (MC, Brxbrx a couple of times, OccasionalUse, Maratrean stuff, Ace three times, etc.) and maybe I resent that. I bet if I went back and looked at those various conflicts, I'd probably find other mods had also stepped in to try to sort things out, take egos out of the picture, and try to defuse explosions. A lot of people trying to do jobs can end up feeling like they're the only ones, even when that's an entirely unjustified position. And of course I also had my feelings hurt by being repeatedly called "fascist" or told to fuck myself with razor wire. So I bet I have lost some perspective, and I appreciate that your challenges to my statements here have pointed that out. I'm sure you'd be a wonderful mod, and if my statements here have seemed like a challenge to you, I assure you that they were far more meant as an endorsement of Blue's positive traits, and not an attack on you.

So anyway blah blah I'm flustered and resentful like a child. About par for the course.--^talk 05:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace: That would be where you went wrong. It probably would have been more productive for you to put the failure behind you and try again than to give up in frustration. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that first time I have been wrong. Anyway - I'll try again if I get voted in again. If not, I'll still try but in my own way as opposed to as a functional mod. Ace^ace 03:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions/clarifications

I'm posting this here because it seems people are looking at this page a bit and it might get a response. This election seems a bit haphazard and slipshod. There's very little information about what exactly is going on. This is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong:

• We are electing two moderators and one alternate. The two are to replace resignations by Ace and Blue, and the alternate will be the third place winner, who will become a mod if a vacancy appears.
• Both Ace and Blue are running, Blue because there was a tiny bit of controversy over how she initially came into the position. Ace I don't know why.
• We are using the same single transferable vote system we used in the last election.

A further question is what happens if we burn through our alternate and another vacancy appears? Another vote? Considering the mod position is barely more than a month old and we've had 3 resignations so far, I'm not sure one alternate will be enough if we don't want bi-monthly elections. That's just my two cents though. Truth be told I don't even know who I'm asking these questions to, as it seems no one has the authority to answer them definitively. DickTurpis (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding, you're right about the election. Two mods and one alternate. If we burn through our alternative, we'll have to decide what to do about it then - but preferably before then. I believe Nutty Roux has elsewhere raised the point that we need an actual formal policy for succession, because we are probably going to see more resignations. So I suppose that after this election, someone will propose a policy for succession, and then we'll vote on it.

I expect that policy will be some variation on one of a couple of possibilities:

• Each election, we will elect seven mods and three alternates, and make do with resignations without worrying about it unless there are five resignations leaving only five mods (which would call for new elections). The numbers might vary (two alternates maybe, or maybe the trigger for new elections is four total mods) but it's one viable possibility.
• No alternates, but just a system of mid-term elections when we drop to five mods or fewer.

Or maybe something else. I do think some system of triggers will be needed - we have new elections either when a majority of mods call for them, a majority vote calls for them, or the number of mods drops to a certain point. Basically we want to be fair while still not having constant elections, so we'll try to find a middle path there with the policy.--^talk 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Ace is running because he wants to be a mod again. He appears to have resigned over acknowledgement of the controversy he was causing, and this election would be an ex post facto endorsement of his past actions to some extent.--^talk 01:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace seemed to state other reasons for his resignation here, but if he wants to run again he obviously has that right. However, a victory for him is going to be taken as an endorsing, or at least condoning, his recent actions I think it's fair that the voting public know this before they vote.

You're absolutely right when you say we should have rules of succession laid out before they're needed. We did have a process, so to speak, established here, as I'm sure you recall, but I guess that got thrown out the window. The vote was mod only, so I guess it wasn't binding the way a community decision is, but having a sitewide vote on whether we should have a sitewide vote about a month after a sitewide vote on the same subject seemed annoyingly convoluted. One reason I like to think we have moderators is to work out some of these details so we don't have to corral the entire site into the polls every few days to settle every little thing.

We also need a procedure in place for removing mods, again, preferably before it's needed. I don't suspect it will be necessary, but I don't want to see any mod abusing their powers, with calls for removal met with the response that there's no process for removing mods so it can't be done. Nor having to make up something on the spot in an ex post facto manner. That can wait until this mess is cleared up, though.

Anyway, I'll go state what exactly we're voting for on the relevant elections pages, as I don't think it really explains it anywhere. DickTurpis (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

a victory for him is going to be taken as an endorsing, or at least condoning, his recent actions I think it's fair that the voting public know this before they vote. that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. A vote me would be seen as condoning my behavior? How stupid. And if it's fair that the voting public know this before they vote then why we don't we go the whole hog and have mod debates? Do you think the voters should also know why maratrean or UHM shouldn't be mods also? Ace^ace 02:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means tell us. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 04:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

idiot who misses the point is a stupid idiot. It isn't up to me to tell everyone who should and shouldn't be a mod. Ace^ace 04:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just as I thought the answer would be. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 05:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going by what AD said: "this election would be an ex post facto endorsement of his past actions to some extent". If you're saying that's not the case, great. I'm satisfied. This resigning and immediately running again confuses me a bit, I have to admit, but I guess that's not uncommon the the Parliamentary political system, though it never happens over here, so that might be why it seems odd to me. I think it would help if you did state why you resigned, as I thought it was because you didn't like the mod job. Anyway, sorry if I offended. DickTurpis (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My reasons...are my own...Ace^ace 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do we have any assurances that if you win you won't immediately resign again because being a mod is lame and stupid? DickTurpis (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, that I can promise. I do like to be a man of mystery though so please continue to obsess about my reason for quitting being a mod :) Remember it is often the Maratrea Goddess who yelps the loudest when Taba hits her with a shoe :) Ace^ace 02:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a rock, mortal McWicked. Shoe. Sheesh. Flap, flap. Taba (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just assumed that people voting for you as mod would be people who were happy with your moderating before. Maybe that was an unwarranted assumption? I dunno. Sorry from me, too, if it was.--^talk 05:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My moderating before was making sure Human paid attention to the rules, sorting out the MC business and moderating a 24 hour long edit war between Nx, Ouse and a few others. I actually did quite a bit until people like Maratrean starting going there should be moderation unless its moderation I don't like and moderators should do what I want them too etc etc, same with Human. That's when I got tired of it - fucking moaners who get bitchy when the community, not the mods the community doesn't do what they want. Ace^ace 05:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)