RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Campaigning/Archive4
Deleting comments by other editors[edit]
Surely that is not permitted and should be grounds for instant dismissal from the poll? ħuman 02:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would suggest that it was probably an accident, since she was deleting everything that had been there. Before you launch another campaign of hysteria, ask.--talk 03:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
A bit more Wikipedia style...?[edit]
As a veteran of many Wikipedia elections, can I suggest that we divide the campaign material from the Festival of Hate comments by other users? While references to "how WP does it" aren't always welcome (and it's not like WP is a paragon of the election process), I'll note that WP eventually got to this approach because of... well what is already going on here.
The campaign section should solely be the venue for people to promote themselves. At the moment the lengthy discussions can disadvantage those innocent bystanders who follow below. (Someone had the sense to push all of the "Human" wrangling to the end, but now the candidates are out of order, which makes it all a bit ramshackle.)
I'd suggest letting the campaign section be restricted to candidates advocating themselves. A separate discussion area will then compartmentalize the heated vitriol mature comments.VOXHUMANA 03:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Naaa, it's way more fun and insulting this way. AceModerator 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Damn right!--talk 06:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be for statements by the candidates, and questions for the candidates. The "here's why shouldn't vote for this guy" stuff should be somewhere else, like here on the talkpage. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 09:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree but people can't help but jump in feet first. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 10:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
List of eligible voters?[edit]
Is there a list of eligible voters? I'd like to spam them with unsolicited campaign flyers. sterileno new information 05:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)