RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Results/Archive7

So

results? Or did we forget to wake DG from his drunken stupor again? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AH has the number barf; will continue trying to sort out later. Peace. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

perhaps do any sort of research before asking questions?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I have a question...  : P WalkerWalkerWalker 23:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Making me do work? Why have users with extra rights if they don't obey our every beck and call? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Noise reduction. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary results (check my calculations!)

In other words, Fuzzy's bit about obeying the plebs' every beck and call can and will be used against him WalkerWalkerWalker 11:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Incorrect raw data; incorrect threshold (?) WalkerWalkerWalker 14:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The results given seem plausible to me.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well... presuming AH doesn't catch something Tielec and I missed, there's an actually correct set of results to be loosed on RW soon. Same victors, though some of the other stuff is different. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Election discussion

If we had elected alternates they would be Human and CorruptUser, which may be of interest to those users. It may be worthwhile keeping this in mind. I say we treat moderators like pilots, there should always be two in the cockpit at any point in time. If we do reach a situation where we only have one moderator, then Human gets pushed up by fiat of whoever is in power at the time, followed by CorruptUser.

Secondly it is noted that DG had a very strong representation, he was far ahead of all other contenders, make of that what you will. FCP started off weak, but came on like a freight train in the later rounds, conversely Goonie started a bit stronger, but languished in later rounds. Paravant started strong and quickly reached the required quota.

In truth, the top 2 were ahead by a significant margin and there was a gap back to FCP and Goonie. Stabby & NarkySawtooth might have been alternates, but fell foul of the random tie-breaker, so bad luck to them. All in all I think the election results pass the common sense test. We could have ended up with a worse group of moderators. Tielec01 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I advocatedfor alts earlier but nobody seemed that interested--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A common sense result for sure. Definitely a strong incumbent factor in those results. Paravant was the only moderator here who most users saw on a regular basis, and did a fine job. And DG, whilst not moderating much, is clearly the one person who knows how the site works technically. It's a good quartet and there is nothing surprising about the result.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the eight ballots (nine, if you count the empty one, but I think I might know who did that) which ran out of listed preferences kinda surprised me; I didn't expect so many. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Idleness I guess. I had to vote twice as I inadvertently put the same selection twice at the first attempt. it was a lot of cross-checking. Other voters may have just given up.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have a somewhat prettified version of these results hiding at User:PacWalker/Sandbox. WalkerWalkerWalker 09:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That's awesome mate, great work. Tielec01 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)