RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Nominations/Archive5

How's it being done?

There was a lot of talk about changing the system after the debacle last time, but as usual, talk doesn't seem to have yielded results. Are we doing things exactly the same, or are we at least using the voting registration system just put in place for board elections? There were a significant number of people who weren't thrilled about STV, and favored a more straightforward approach, but I guess that's not happening this time. DickTurpis (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It feels a lot like we're doing it just because we've said we'll do it every six months & doing it same way as always because nothing alternative has been agreed. As such, I really can't get enthusiastic about the election this time around. I'd be happy to discuss alternative options, & have some ideas, but it's been a washout whenever we've started these discussions before. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall the elections for mods were supposed to be the same system as the board (whatever that may be). If we've adopted a new system for the board it seems to me it would apply to the mods as well, right? So does that mean we're only taking registered voters? DickTurpis (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally like to submit a set number of votes (6 or whatever) that all have equal weight. I don't feel so strongly that I want someone much more than another. (i.e. weighted votes) If I think someone would be good as a moderator, I vote for them, if not, I don't. Whoever gets the most votes should win. Refugee^{talk page} 18:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to submit an unlimited number of votes that all have equal weight. We'd then calculate the average number of mods people voted for, & appoint that number of mods from those receiving most votes, rounding up or down as appropriate to resolve any ties. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably too late to change the voting procedure for this election, though I wouldn't mind revisiting the possibility when it's over. I would like to know if the recently instituted registration policy applies to this election as well as the board. I guess Trent is about the only one who can answer this? DickTurpis (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, the new registration policy only applies to the Board of Trustees elections. There has been no talk one way or the other of implementing it for Moderator elections. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to the Moderators page, it says elections will be conducted "using the extension and franchise rules that were used for elections to the Board of Trustees." Does that mean that the process changes with the former as it does with the latter? It says "...rules that were used...", not "are" used, so I guess it could go either way. If we have voter registration enacted it makes sense to use it for the election we know was compromised last time. DickTurpis (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just stating as a matter of fact that there have been no discussions or decisions, at least from the Board of Trustees, about whether or not the new rules also apply to moderator elections. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a complete fucking sham. Absolutely nothing has been done about the fact Nx et al gamed the system last time. These elections have no validity and as such whomever is elected have no authority. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, registration addresses that very problem. That's why it would make sense to use it. DickTurpis (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The board does not have a mandate as a body to make any decisions about how the mod elections are run so that decision won't be coming from the board. The very mandate of the Mods gives them the authority to instigate policy discussions/votes related to mod elections, you guys can change the frequency of elections, the number of mods, the voting system, whatever. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, after this election I am finally proposing the vote I outlined last time. The perfect has become the enemy of the good in this case, and too much dilly-dallying about getting the exact right options has meant nothing will be done. I blame myself for not just stepping up and doing it a month ago - now we have to wait until after the election. But right after it, I'm starting the vote on voting methods and franchise.--^talk 04:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no reason why we can't use registered voters this time. Apparently it's up to the mods. I mean, mod elections are supposed to be basically the same as board elections, so we already have a precedent. DickTurpis (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I know self-nomination isn't allowed....

....and I also know that my past on RationalWiki has been, to say the least, a bit sour. I freely admit that I have been, in the past, a complete and utter n00b, more than once, on various things, including copyrights, edit wars, mission/delete conflicts, et cetera. I am almost certain that nobody will nominate me and I will not become a moderator. This is not just a suck-up attempt to get votes, and I do not want anyone to think that. As some of you could testify, my more recent behaviour has been much better than my earlier behaviour. I would like to say that I am currently viewing my previous actions on here as learning experiences on what not to do; sometimes, these lessons just take some time to sink in. I would simply like to gently put my hat just outside the ring, waiting for anyone to, completely voluntarily, tap it in. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-nominations aren't allowed? Are you sure. I'm pretty sure they are.--^talk 04:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

when did self-nominations stop ? I think you can. Hamster (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why Blue nominated all her socks! :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Election ennui

We're nearly a week into the nominations period (with no new nominations in the past three days) and have as many declined as accepted nominations, a total of six confirmed candidates for the nine available positions, and a complete absence of the usual campaigning.

Is it time we face up to the fact that there has been a fairly widespread loss of confidence and/or enthusiasm in the current moderator system, and discuss alternative options rather than go through the motions of an election which probably isn't much wanted or needed? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe people were disillusioned after the protracted battle over sock voting that followed the last election, but I don't think that's the reason we have so few nominees. The first few elections saw a huge campaign and lots of candidates because people didn't really know what the job entailed, and many moderators not really doing anything at all during their term didn't help. Now that there is more familiarity with the job - how most of the time our actions are met with varying amounts of whining, condemnation and stubborn reversal, and how unpopular it can make you to have to protect people like Maratrean and Brxbrx and Rob and Dirk Steele from administrative abuse, etc. - it's only natural that fewer people want to run.

I do not think that this means we should scrap the system entirely, because there's no evidence that any other system works better, and at least this one has the potential for reform. I'm sure we'll get at least nine by the time nominations close. Blue (pester) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, the offices should be by appointment. No-one who aspires to the office should be trusted with it. 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

People will sign up sooner to the end date, I'm sure. We're not yet in Citizendium territory, but that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. But I would wait until after the election to do it, if I were you. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what's been said the last two-three elections, there's been a certain amount of talking, & it's petered out with nothing happening. Getting nine by the time nominations close isn't much to aspire to; it just means appointing more or less whoever signs up, which isn't ideal for a position that's supposed to have moral authority & community support. It's also unlikely we'll get many new nominees, as most nominations are usually made in the first day or so. We'll probably get some of the current nominees accepting their nomination & not much more than that. The potential for reform is there theoretically, but there have been no tangible changes in the system since it was imposed last summer, & I'm wondering whether it's just better to draw a line under it, declare it's dead, & come up with something new. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a good idea to get rid of this system before deciding on a new one (that very situation precipitated the imposition of mods from Trent, without much community deliberation about whether it was the best thing to do or whether it was widely wanted). Blue (is useful) 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Also, not as visible. Put up an alert, I think.--^talk 03:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather the Board of Trustee voter registration alert stay until the voting starts, because it's actually important. Getting as many people feeling involved in the Foundation itself — for now that means getting them to register and, hopefully, vote for Trustees — is vital. To be frank, the Mod elections take a back seat to that.

That being said, I do think the Mod elections should be permanently rescheduled so they don't awkwardly overlap with the Trustee elections, as they did last year and again this year. Ideally, the Board elections finish up, the voting deadline passes, then the Mod elections start. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be ok if the mod elections finished before the board elections started? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Better idea: Ice the mod elections; have a simple up-and-down majority wins vote to keep the current crop for another X units of Y time period (I say three months) for lack of interest and concentrate on getting momentum behind the important one. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC).

The mod elections have fixed, six-month-apart dates for nominations and voting. The Board elections are sort of whenever Trent and/or other Trustees feel like holding them, usually in January, and I'm not sure why they started so early this year. How about this: change the nominating period from two weeks to one week for moderators and start the Board elections January 1st? No overlap and nothing big needs to change for next year in terms of scheduling. Blue (pester) 05:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No fixed dates for Trustee elections? It really is amateur hour at the Foundation Board, isn't it? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the voting procedures, which, beginning in 2011, shall take place yearly." That's the best I can find. You would think it would be the other way around, though, that the internal popularity vote of a website could be more easily rescheduled than that of the Board that runs the place.

As for the intercom, can't intercoms with multiple messages be put up? i.e. "Don't forget to register to vote in the board election. Also, nominations are open for the board and moderator elections." Would save a lot of trouble here. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 07:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A big weakness of the intercom extension is that messages can't be edited once sent. Blue (pester) 07:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

But you can at least send a new one, yes? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 07:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That you can, and I have. Blue (is useful) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I be a moderator please?

Would be funny to give sysop rights to an IP, no? ; ) —84.198.53.190 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-nomination is permitted (see above). If you're asking for somebody else to nominate you, I doubt they will. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't win a lot of people's trust if I didn't post a humorous request on the talkpage first, though. ; ) —84.198.53.190 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Campaigning

No campaigning this year? Do we want Romney to win? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems so. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 05:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)